Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 January	2 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Yates (artist)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Green (boxer)[edit]

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

Non notable boxer Suarez Mason (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggests satisfying boxing notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 18:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX.--Donniediamond (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Delaney (footballer)[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) standards for association football; never played in a fully professional league (League of Ireland is not considered fully professional). Contested prod. only (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced biography of a living person. A notable sportsperson should show up plenty of Google News and Newspapers hits. He doesn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article, he died in 2003, so he's not living which would make the lack of Google News understandable. only (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ugh. Yes. Sorry. I was getting different articles mixed up in my head. My point still stands, with modification, though. A notable sportsperson of the past should show up in Google Newspapers and Google Books searches. A newspapers search will show up the coverage of the time and a books search should show up any ongoing historic interest. Just throw in the name of a semi-obscure to medium-famous sportsperson of the past and you get some hits. He doesn't. Of course, if the author of the article had given us anything else to go on, we could consider those sources as well but they didn't so this is all we have to go on. I'll also note that the article is an orphan apart from one disambiguation link. In more than 8 years of existence nobody has felt the need to link it to any of the related articles, which suggests that the authors of those articles, who presumably know about the those subjects, don't regard him as particularly important. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is notable and is about the same as other articles in Wikipedia which are judged a keep. I kNow abOut bankS (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell us what makes him notable? What aspects of WP:GNG or Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability does he meet? only (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several mentions in the print edition of the Irish Times. I kNow abOut bankS (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show those to us, please? only (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind...I've blocked him indefinitely for unrelated issues. only (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 12:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated here passes WP:NFOOTY, and none of it is reliably sourced at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a stronger claim of notability and better sources can actually be shown — but we don't keep inadequate articles on the basis that those things might eventually become possible, if it can't be definitively shown that they are true. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burton (boxer)[edit]

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

Non notable boxer. Suarez Mason (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for boxers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Lacks the accomplishments to be a notable boxer and the significant coverage required by GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX.--Donniediamond (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was going to also vote but this seems obvious for notability and keeping, no need for continued AfD (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Stevens[edit]

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

Non notable footballer Suarez Mason (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Passes WP:NFOOTY as he has played in the Football League. Number 5 7 12:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played in WP:FPL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, his one game in the Football League is enough to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. There are some other claims to notability there too, such as being the team's youngest player ever. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes he just about passes WP:NFOOTBALL by playing 23 minutes of a game as a substitute in the fourth tier of English soccer. However, that does not trump WP:GNG.--Suarez Mason (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFOOTBALL clearly states: "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." Football League Two is a fully professional league. Case closed. Oh, and just for the record: As of today, Stevens has played four games for Barnet per Soccerbase. Badmotorfinger (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob[edit]

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

Reads more like a collection of sermons than an encyclopedia article. Seems to just be a random collection of passages about God/religion -- there's no contiguous subject being covered. The contents of the article are fairly controversial -- for example, it contests the theory of the Big Bang. Highly subjective, written from a first-person perspective with no semblence of a neutral point of view. IagoQnsi (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Theory (scientific) is only explained in the article. It does not contests the theory but is used to explain a point. Without the article being written in its complete form, it is not right to subject it for deletion. Rosario Fernandes (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the title tag in the above comment to bold text -- the title was causing weird things to happen on the deletion log page. Anyway, I only mentioned the big bang content as an example of non-neutral content in the page. The issues with neutrality extend to the entirety of the page, not just that section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and must contain only content that is verifiable by secondary sources. Opinionated primary-source-like content is not acceptable; see Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view for more info. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete per WP:CSD#A10: duplicates the topic of God. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bunch of material that is already covered in articles like Big Bang, God, Book of Exodus and the like. The content in this article can't stand on its own. /wiae /tlk 18:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely needed for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We might have an article with this title, with a much more limited scope covering the theology of specific topic, but what we have here is an ESSAY, not an encyclopedia article. It requires TNT and starting again. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron. SJK (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Acevedo[edit]

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

Non notable boxer Suarez Mason (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is questionable for boxing notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the consensus seems clear (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bacon[edit]

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

Non notable fighter Suarez Mason (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He may be notable for representing Australia in the Barcelona Olympic Games in 1992.--Grahame (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS. I am confused though. The official Australian Olympics website says he competed in the 90kg class [1], yet our summary of the event doesn't include such a division. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:NOLYMPICS per [2]. In response to AtHomeIn神戸, defining weight categories can sometimes be difficult as they are often just labelled e.g. "heavyweight" with no actually specified kg in the title. Best place to confirm we have those categories correct would be the official Olympic Reports - Basement12 (T.C) 09:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As per above, he meets WP:NOLYMPICS / WP:Notability (sports), and I can see no justifiable reason to otherwise remove the article. AtHomeIn神戸, our(WP) version of the event is correct; the event is the "Judo mens ~~half-heavyweight~~middleweight" which in the 1992 Olympics was ~~86-95kg~~78-86kg; in subsequent Olympics however, the Judo ~~half-heavyweight~~ middleweight category was set to 90kg, which is probably the cause of the error in the Australian reference and within the Chris Bacon article. The official event details, Which you can see here: [3] show this. Both articles should be improved to reflect this. Aeonx (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Found some additional references, including multiple wide-spread news sources (BBC); Chris Bacon is very notable and of encyclopedic value, being multiple-times Australian Judo champion, Bronze medalist, Olympian, and well-known and reported on British boxer. Aeonx (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2 - The AfD requester is a relatively new Wikipedian, with very few edits. See: [4] Aeonx (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems pretty clear that he meets the notability criteria for athletes. He's not notable for his MMA or boxing, but his record as a judoka and Olympian is sufficient. Papaursa (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Alwan-Arab[edit]

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

Non notable boxer. Suarez Mason (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, just a link to his fight record. Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better applicable for boxing notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Rates[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable news personality. No 3rd party sources used in article. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are third party sources frequently used in this article. There are 13 all together. The reporter has covered major cases like the casey anothony trial and the trayvon martin shooting and is notable. His page should stay up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani0rad (talk • contribs)

Dani0rad please review WP:ABOUTSELF and Wikipedia:Third-party_sources to see how wikipedia defines 3rd party. In particular "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered" - All of these pages you use are from sites and content affiliated with Rates. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His bio on his work website is independent of him. You can see it was not written by him but by an Amanda who works at the station. Simiarly, I am working to include more references with videos he shot, but it is difficult considering a lot were before the times of youtube. However, there are videos from his Facebook page that prove what I have written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani0rad (talk • contribs)

That bio is not independent. BC108 (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as long as we don't have third-party sources that discuss, in-depth, what the subject has done. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing establishes the subject of the article as notable, the refs are in the main by him, not about him. For someone supposedly in the public eye I though I'd easily find some and !vote keep, but I could not. I'd be happy to reconsider if such refs emerge. BC108 (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Haynes[edit]

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

This is a non-notable author who got a little bit of local coverage for his self-published novel. This isn't enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is extremely, extremely promotional - so much so that I'd actually endorse a speedy deletion via WP:G11. This is probably because there's a very likely COI here and if this wasn't done by a paid editor, it was likely done by someone who knows the author. It could also very likely pass A7, as the only claims of note are his Amazon sales (which mean nothing on Wikipedia) and a social media following. A look at his YT account shows that he has all of 10 followers, which goes against the claims in the article. The only coverage he's received is from Tulsa World, a local source. If I don't speedy this, I'm very tempted to close this one early after a few people weigh in on this because there's pretty much zero chance of this surviving deletion given the dearth of sourcing that comes up via a search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards waiting and letting this get deleted as a snow close, since that would help prevent re-creation before the author gains more coverage to achieve notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was a little too generous in avoiding a speedy. Well, my initial prod was reverted by an IP editor from the University of Tulsa, so I think it's possible the article will be recreated if it's speedy deleted. For what it's worth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any additional reliable sources either; delete until it fulfils WP:N, let alone WP:CREATIVE. ‑‑Yodin^T 11:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Save Page Doesn't seem to be hurting anything. There are definitely worse pages then this on Wikipedia. There are no YT claims as Tokyogirl179 suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.197.179 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim I'm referring to is the "significant internet following". A significant following would result in thousands upon millions of followers - having 10 followers on YouTube doesn't back up those claims, nor does the small amount of followers on the other social media sites. Although I do need to state that a large amount of followers does not automatically mean that someone is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines - we actually have quite a few people who are extremely well known on various social media, yet fail notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Some of the Lets Players are great examples of this, as we have several LPers that have extremely large followings but fail notability guidelines fairly solidly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would read WP:EXISTENCE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Joeykai (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, a search brings up nothing reliable, similarly the book creepers does not meet WP:NBOOK, with again no reliable sources found. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Lyttle[edit]

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

Non notable boxer Suarez Mason (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirement for boxers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and the only reference is a link to his fight record and that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is highly suspect. After apparently having a nearly 50 fight pro career, he then qualified for the usually amateur competition Commonwealth Games? Plus, it says he qualified for the 1951 Commonwealth Games, but no such games took place (1950 British Empire Games and 1954 British Empire and Commonwealth Games). RonSigPi (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no convincing signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rea[edit]

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

Non notable boxer. Suarez Mason (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX and won only 10 of his 42 professional fights. The coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better applicable for the boxing notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Barron (actor)[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, only scene awards at best. No independent reliable sourcing. The "Dave Awards" are not notable (the wikilink goes to a list) and were given by an individual non-notable magazine reviewer; as such they fail the PORNBIO award criterion in three ways, not being well-known, significant, nor industry awards. Prior (2010) AFD was inconclusive, found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Barron (pornographic actor), tied up in a broader and then-intractable dispute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source it or lose it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the inclusion guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator's detailed analysis. Finnegas (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Parker[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content. PROD tendentiously removed without explanation, article improvement, or meaningful edit summary by the usual disruptive suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO 7 GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been nominated multiple times. Just because she hasn't won shouldn't be grounds for deletion. She has performed in numerous movies and is well known in the industry. STOP DELETING ARTICLES SIMPLY FOR THE SAKE OF DELETING THEM!!! Hobbamock (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbamock:, you should review the archived talk page discussions at PORNBIO, which reached the "overwhelming consensus" that award nomintions alone were not sufficient to demonstrate presumptive notability in this field. If you persist in arguments that simply ignore the applicable SNG, the closer will likely discount or disregard your !votes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it appears that a majority of what you do is nominate articles for deletion. They may not be perfect. They may not be the most relevant or "notable", but people put time and energy into these in order to provide some sort of historical record of information for those who may be seeking it. Perhaps no one 50 years from now is going to be looking for Casey Parker, or maybe they will. The problem I have is that there is no harm in an article that isn't "notable" by consensus of a small group of people. All this does is discourage people from contributing to Wikipedia. So unless there are blatant lies, misrepresentation or plagiarism, I see no need to keep deleting articles except for the sake of deleting them. Hobbamock (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any coverage in non porn sources reliable or not Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs must be sourced to GNG standard.Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no better signs of better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails guidelines for biographies of pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fjellgata[edit]

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This article is one of a dozen or so on streets in Kristiansand by the same creator, originally each with two "references" to maps.google.com and the Kristiansand tourist office website, neither of which mention the street; now each referenced with a single Google maps link to prove that the streets actually exist. I prodded several of these, and tried to engage with the articles' creator at their talk page, but got no response. Can't find anything remarkable about this street online in English or Norwegian. This would probably be an acceptable entry for Wikitravel, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a gazeteer, and this is not the place for a stub article on each street in the centre of Kristiansand. There is also significant overlap between the contributions of the creator of this article and those of another editor, whose user talk page is also full of prods and a plea to stop creating stubs on non-notable places in Kristiansand. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Jensens gate[edit]

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, it is not notable. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gyldenløves gate[edit]

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This article is one of a dozen or so on streets in Kristiansand by the same creator, originally each with two "references" to maps.google.com and the Kristiansand tourist office website, neither of which mention the street; now each referenced with a single Google maps link to prove that the streets actually exist. I prodded several of these, and tried to engage with the articles' creator at their talk page, but got no response. Can't find anything remarkable about this street online in English or Norwegian. This would probably be an acceptable entry for Wikitravel, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a gazeteer, and this is not the place for a stub article on each street in the centre of Kristiansand. There is also significant overlap between the contributions of the creator of this article and those of another editor, whose user talk page is also full of prods and a plea to stop creating stubs on non-notable places in Kristiansand. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Wergelands gate[edit]

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This article is one of a dozen or so on streets in Kristiansand by the same creator, originally each with two "references" to maps.google.com and the Kristiansand tourist office website, neither of which mention the street; now each referenced with a single Google maps link to prove that the streets actually exist. Can't find anything remarkable about this street online in English or Norwegian. This would probably be an acceptable entry for Wikitravel, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a gazeteer, and this is not the place for a stub article on each street in the centre of Kristiansand. There is also significant overlap between the contributions of the creator of this article and those of another editor, whose user talk page is also full of prods and a plea to stop creating stubs on non-notable places in Kristiansand. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Bradbury, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events), CSD G3: Blatant hoax. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bocephus Foley[edit]

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

This seems like a nice ghost story to tell around the campfire, but in the absence of any sources to confirm this story, I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if this individual were referenced how he this notable? Dying under ghostly circumstances? Unless the article is changed to document the event and it is well referenced I don't think this makes a case for notability. reddogsix (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found literally no non-Wikipedia web hits for a "Bocephus Foley", so I don't even know if this person was real. And even if they were real, notability would still be an issue. /wiae /tlk 20:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total and complete lack of sources of any kind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vollgata[edit]

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

Non-notable street, deprodded without comment by original creator of article. PamD 17:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This article is one of a dozen or so on streets in Kristiansand by the same creator, originally each with two "references" to maps.google.com and the Kristiansand tourist office website, neither of which mention the street; now each referenced with a single Google maps link to prove that the streets actually exist. I prodded several of these, and tried to engage with the articles' creator at their talk page, but got no response. Can't find anything remarkable about this street online in English or Norwegian. This would probably be an acceptable entry for Wikitravel, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a gazeteer, and this is not the place for a stub article on each street in the centre of Kristiansand. There is also significant overlap between the contributions of the creator of this article and those of another editor, whose user talk page is also full of prods and a plea to stop creating stubs on non-notable places in Kristiansand. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no signs of applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A clear consensus for deletion after relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian C. Carroll[edit]

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

Autobiography/resume (co-written by an Associate Director of Public Relations) of the executive vice president of a small liberal arts college. No indication of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources apart from some local press coverage. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I just don't see evidence of notability besides that he's a common figure at the university to give press quotes to local media.
As a note on what I was looking for (and I realise this does risk sound like condoning addition of puffery), what would have me vote keep on this would be clear evidence that his leadership is recognised outside his university as significant (industry awards, recognition, other academic administrators citing his influence, being a frequent keynote speaker at conferences in how to do academic administration well, etc.), but I don't see those things. Blythwood (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps as this seems questionable for the applicable notability. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mid-level administrator, not an academic. The publications are trivial. The areas of the university he supervises are the non-academic part of things, unlike a position, like Provost. His core function seems to be fund-raising. The article is furthermore considerably promotional, both for him and his employer. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotionally written with no evidence of passing WP:PROF. In particular his publications lack the impact needed for WP:PROF#C1 and his administrative position is not high enough for #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least for now, he lacks the adequate notability. Arashtitan 15:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article is found to be original research, and is therefore not suitable for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muwahhid Muslim[edit]

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

Pure WP:OR spiced up with a helping of chutzpah. There's a source saying that Muwahhid is one of the terms Wahhabis use for self-identification, but it's anyone's guess what the article is about. The text includes such blatant examples of WP:SYNTH (trying hard to assume good faith here) as this: "Since Muwahhids predominate in Sunnicentric centers of worship, some Muwahhids questioned the hadithically derived sunnah that had little to no feedback from ayahs in the Quran as well as the tendency among masjidgoers (mosquegoers) to give undue weight to non-tafsir elucidations that have no Quranically derived roots." The cited reference says: "Muwahhid 'Unitarian'; one who believes in God's unity (tawhid). Term used by Wahhabis and Druzes (among others) to describe their beliefs." Eperoton (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another egregious example: "Furthermore, their arguments against the excessive emphasization of intermediaries between mankind and God was primarily based on a fear of giving leeway to overzealous mosquegoers who might possibly exploit and manipulate less religiously grounded mosquegoers." The cited reference says: "The storytellers recounting the stories of One Thousand and One Nights to Muslim generations of the post-al-Muwahhid centuries, did instil a little oblivion in the spirit of their listeners who went to sleep, closing their eyes on the enchanting vision of a sumptuous past." (from an article by Malek Bennabi, who coined the term "post-al-Muwahhid era" in reference to the Almohads [5]). Other attempts of source verification also failed. Since the article was mostly written by a single editor, it is doubtful whether one can trust any of the sourcing there on an assumption of their good faith. Eperoton (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Muwahhid (term). The term has mutiple variations of spellings because it is transliterated differently by each author. Howver I saw many search returns, but there does not seem to be a fixed definition with each author having his/her own meaning on the term. 92.10.226.159 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page covering different uses of the term already exists at The People of Monotheism and it provides a reasonable inventory, aside from the OR relating to the article under discussion. Eperoton (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I change my vote to merging the salvageable bits of this article to The People of Monotheism.92.10.226.159 (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT Delete. It concerns me that the article is supposed to only focus on the conglomeration of non-political and primarily theological Muslim revivalist movements that grew in various intermittent periods including the early 19th century. While there may be grounds and sources for an article about the ideology of muwahhidism (including its historical versions, such as the Almohads), the current article is really a bunch of synthesised original research. Add to that the misrepresentation of sources and you got yourselves a delete. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the flag that is said to be a muwahhidist symbol, is actually the flag of the Almohad (al-muwahhid) dynasty. → More proof of OR. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and mention elsewhere if needed as this is questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator is advised to complete a search for sources before nominating. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Diva - 2015[edit]

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

promo, no sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 17:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9]. See also section D of WP:BEFORE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Miss Diva 2015: Top 16 Contestants Unveiled". International Business Times, India Edition.
^ "Miss Diva 2015: Contestants sizzle in swimsuit round". International Business Times, India Edition.
^ "Miss Diva 2015 finalists showcase their communication skills". The Times of India.
^ "Miss Diva Universe crowned at a Grand Finale". The Times of India.
^ "Watch Miss Diva 2015 finalists sizzle in swimwear on TV tonight". The Times of India.
^ "Actress Urvashi Rautela crowned Miss Diva 2015". The Indian Express.
^ "The audition rounds of Yamaha Fascino Miss Diva 2015 held at Radisson Blu, at Ahmedabad". The Times of India.
^ "Yamaha Fascino Miss Diva 2015 selects 14 finalists". Gulf News.
^ ""Lara Dutta says girls appear more prepared these days". The Indian Express.

I have told you before that you have to declare your Conflict of Interest. You are now again filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft to protect an year-article while there is not even a link to a parent article about Miss Diva. The Banner talk 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no COI; improving an article is not COI. Here's the edits I have performed: add sources, add more footnotes template with Twinkle, move template, add an image. Please familiarize yourself with the actual COI guideline. None of these edits require sources (should I add more sources to qualify the sources I added, like referencing a reference?) and none constitute "fancruft", not even adding an image. It is sad that your characterization of me as "filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft" is so dishonest; I guess you'll just say anything regardless of the actual truth of the matter. How disappointing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps if this can be confirmed as notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As much as I would absolutely love to go with delete .... Northamerica1000 has unfortunately proven it meets GNG , –Davey2010^Talk 01:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sourced well enough to comply. Can be improved and sources are available. WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Group Companies[edit]

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

Subject doesn't seem to have had significant coverage in reliable sources. The existing source reads like a press release and apparently the only source that has significant coverage about this company, fails WP:GNG. Doesn't seem to have met WP:NCOMP. And then there's the problem of copy pasting. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the copy and pasting problem and the one source problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badursun (talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are press releases, unfortunately..—UY Scuti ^Talk 18:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at the other DR. Revent^talk 00:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and improve~~: it's true that there is little coverage online in English for "Ugur Group", but searching Gnews for the company's real Turkish name "Uğur Grubu" I see sufficient coverage in WP:RS including in-depth articles in the national dailies Milliyet and Hürriyet. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NeemNarduni2: It's nice we have sources in Turkish. However,I'd like to see the sources. Can you link them here, please? Thanks and regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 10:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added two to the article. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more sources and the official web sites under the group companies today.Badursun (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)badursun[reply]

There was a source about a tobacco company also named Ugur Grup. It is not this company so I changed it.Badursun (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)badursun[reply]

@NeemNarduni2: Are you sure the sources you added are not a different company? ^^ —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell. No, I assumed that it was part of the same conglomerate. In that case, as a non-native speaker of rather basic Turkish, I will withdraw my "keep" recommendation, and remain neutral for now. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I edited that conglomerate. 85.103.146.22 (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)badursun[reply]

Keep. 1500 employees is sufficiently large that sources can be expected to exist, and they do. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I shouldn't have relisted this.. My bad. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Cup Moot[edit]

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

This is weird. There are dozens of references, yet all they are is news releases about the winner. The only part of the article that's properly sourced is the laundry list of winners, remove that and there's nothing sourced remaining! Guy (Help!) 19:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are references for the claim as to who won, not sure what you're on to. Keep. Manderiko (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there are no sources about the subject. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are now, in inter alia, the Straits Times links. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, keep. I helped create the page. It will help if you can particularise your concerns. I see a dozen different websites that are used. The wix website is unfortunate but that is the platform the Japanese organisers chose to use -- but in any event they only have a corroborative function as their contents overlap with the kokusaiho sources, and are now listed only as external links. The other surviving sources for the body text now comprise national newspapers, embassy news, online news, and university news. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as this seems convincing for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Cinque[edit]

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

Absolutely no indication of notability. Article created by an indef-blocked editor with a history of fabrication and suspected hoaxes (see, e.g., this and this), so the one source in the article cannot be accepted in good faith (the external link has no mention of Cinque). Not in Benezit, no relevant hits (that I can see) on Scholar, JSTOR and so on. He cannot be the Neapolitan goldsmith mentioned here, as he was 11 when that was published. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Justlettersandnumbers. Mduvekot (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this would imaginably be acceptable but there are no further convincing signs of an article. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

why delete? the source is in bibliography and are notable the napolitan Italian sculpture school. is not an hoaxing.

--79.24.143.198 (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is acceptable, convincing sings?

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/scuola-napoletana-secoli-xix-xx-cinque-sculture-in-4011259-details.aspx?pos=126&intObjectID=4011259&sid= --79.24.143.198 (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cinque in the description on the Christies website refers to the number of items in the lot, 5, not the name of an artist. Five bronzes depicting street urchins from the Neapolitan school, created sometime in the 19th or 20th century. There is no indication of an artist called Vincenzo Cinque.Mduvekot (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to weather this article is a copyright violation or not is a different thing and will be duly addressed. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Molaeb[edit]

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

Article lacks citations altogether. None of the material in the article is sourced, meaning its content was likely created by the person himself. A Google search turns up a series of self-promotional articles and quotes, an excerpt from a city guidebook for Beirut, Twitter, Instagram, etc. Article needs evidence of in-depth interest by independent reliable sources in order to be retained. These were not forthcoming. KDS4444^Talk 06:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is fixable and the subject matter is very well known regionally. I will add citations in time -~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as this seems somewhat convincing and may need familiar attention for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've blanked this article and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 February 3. Two previous versions of it was speedied as copyright violations, and while some attempts have been made to rewrite this version it's still rather too close to the source. It may well be salvageable with further rewrites or removals. Hut 8.5 22:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Trede[edit]

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

Composer of production music that fails WP:MUSIC entirely. The German Wikipedia page does not cite any further sources either. Karst (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better coverage can be found as there's nothing yet convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet -- He strikes me as a very minor composer. I do not think we have an article on Trede Foundation of which he is said to have been a benefactor. If we did we might have merged the bio to it as a "founder " paragraph. I therefore presume the foundation to be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XM736 8-inch projectile[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have the notability of a standalone article, may be better off merged with what little contents it has Prisencolin (talk) 00:40, 20 January 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 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Weapons of mass destruction (in the classical NBC/CBR sense) are subjects that are intensely covered in many sources, and come as close to "inherently notable" as nearly anything does. A quick search shows multiple potential sources - certainly enough to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although many of the additional available sources are somewhat repetitious (of each other) and technical (ballistic data), there are adequate sources for WP:GNG. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic-Persian literacy relation[edit]

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

The subject is not defined and its notability is not established. In fact, it's not clear what this article is about. It seems to be a personal essay, containing some material that could be merged into other articles, and some which is WP:OR or simply unintelligible. Eperoton (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 05:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 05:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.

Keep. Dubious nomination for page deletion: Most of the references of the page are online and meet the criteria for reliability WP:RS as a secondary and tertiary source. Ibn Khaldun is WP:BASIC, hence Muqaddimah Ibn Khaldun’s translation from Arabic to Urdu by Allama Raghib Rahmani, Dehlvi (with more than 12 Editions), published by Nafees Academy, Karachi is a well known reference in the Muslim historiography citation among Islamic historian of the subcontinent. Thus, reproduction of Ibn Khaldun’s written material, from Urdu language translation to English, in no way constitutes a label of OR. Also the finding of deletion-nominator as personal essay appears to be strange in view of his own wording that "some material that could be merged into other articles"

Subject of the page is simply literacy relations between two languages, therefore observation of nominator that “subject is not defined and its notability is not established” creates a question mark at his own understanding of the subject. Nannadeem (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate that the article is not WP:OR, it should summarize RSs discussing the subject "Arabic-Persian literacy relation", rather than present an original synthesis of sources. You are correct about the question mark over my understanding of the subject. I have never seen the term "Arabic-Persian literacy relation" in RSs or elsewhere and don't know what it is supposed to mean. Eperoton (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for “question mark at his own understanding of the subject”. Nannadeem (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: see later comment about draftifying - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)) Delete. Hardly understandable WP:SYNTHESIS. I think the article wants to tell: "Check out the contributions that the Persians made to Arabic literature", so in that way it is a WP:CFORK of Arabic literature. Linguistically speaking, the term "literacy" is used wrongly: literacy is the ability to read and write - babies have zero literacy for example. The creator probably meant "literary" (=pertaining to literature). - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to use "literacy" in a restrictive sense of reading and writing, or perhaps "written literature". In any case, I agree about WP:CFORK. The influence of Persian literature on Arabic literature should be discussed in Arabic literature, and vice versa. A compendium of contributions made by ethnic Persians is not an encyclopedic topic. Eperoton (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the presence of Literacy and Literature pages, I request to go through these articels first. Then "Check out the contributions that the Persians made to Arabic literature" with Ibn Khaldun in his Muqaddimah Part-2 (Fasal number 35). If this is the case, blame goes to the first writer. However, I am learning about the hiden activities of my brain by editing Arabic-Persian literacy relation, through postmartem “deletion discussion”. It is my further learning that development of literacy to generate literature is in-encyclopedic.

Going to somewhat out of contest and recollecting my favorite subject, it is submitted that nothing is new and cannot be new, the synthesis of material from the matter already existed is called new. Even element Hydrogen is synthesis. Beyond synthesis is God. Synthesis/OR/Copy vio/Verbatum all are my credentials. Nannadeem (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Read the "article" and am still in the dark as to what exactly is being discussed. The writer seems to have penned his personal reflections on a topic which should be discussed in the "literature" article of both languages i.e in Persian literature and Arabic Literature. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides vote (which was expected in the same manner), dubious commentary. Nannadeem (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nannadeem huh? What do you mean? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC):[reply]

@ this is also my question after reading your comments (merger or deletion? and why if it is personal reflection). Nannadeem (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nannadeem Deletion is written there bolded up for all to see, so yes my comment is deletion. As to the why part, well WP:OR is the place for you to go. We do not allow personal essays here, sorry. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes an optimist cannot convince to any pessimist. Nannadeem (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nannadeem can you please stop speaking this gibberish? you are making like zero sense here. Are you typing while high or something? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge I think this article can be merged in Modern Persian.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so Merge and if this is unable to happen, nominate again and delete if needed. We should explore whether this can be kept for now and merged. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The correlation between Persian and Arabic literature, particularly due to changes in Persian language after the Arabs conquest of Persia and changing the official language to Arabic for a few centuries, in addition Iranians' literary work in Arabic could be of significance. Nevertheless, this article requires considerable revision, otherwise should be merged. Arashtitan 14:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per article content and author's comment, this article is not just about literature, but specifically literacy, in the absence of cited RSs specifically discussing the topic of its "relation". Eperoton (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space so it can be cleaned up; i think there is usable content here. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also willing for this, drafting instead. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating this page I perceived it like pregnant woman (by going through various books and similar contents for online citation). Anyhow I am ready for its death or cure. Nannadeem (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would not mind draftifying either. I do admit that it is difficult to give a well-argued opinion, if the article is written so awkwardly. There may also be more clarity about possible merger destinations, once cleaned up. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Eperoton (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University College Dublin Students' Union[edit]

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

This went to AfD in November, but only attracted 2 responses, so was closed as no consensus, with no prejudice against a swift renomination. This has been tagged for notability for eight years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or another. I don't see how this meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines at all. At best, worth a merge/redirect to University College Dublin, but I'm unsure if it's even worth that. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge list of notable officers perhaps, otherwise delete. No notablity established, no improvement for eight years as the nomination mentions. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete no stand alone notability. Fails WP:ORG. Oppose merge as most of the article content is routine student union. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is no difference here to all the other student union pages which exist - it's late at night for me so I'll dig out the reasoning later but if those pages are valid I can come back and tidy this page to match validity with those others. While the original creators have not made improvements I can try now. 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 02:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The union has had an impact on politics and other student bodies in Ireland and there is notability. 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 02:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - which is why I said I'd come back to it later :-) 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 03:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep continued~~ The UCD student's union meets notability defined as an "organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization" since it is regularly covered by the national news outlets both tv and newspaper. Examples like in the Independent ^[1] or the Irish Times ^[2] and the Journal^[3] - The Union has had national political impacts in feminism and contraception as well, for example.

While these have not been included on the page and the page may indeed need editing - would these references and similar be enough to consider the Union to have notability? 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 03:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "UCD students union makes €1.1m sales in first year". Independent.ie.
^ "UCD students' union marks 40th anniversary". The Irish Times. 20 March 2015.
^ Gavan Reilly. "UCD students vote to leave national students' union". TheJournal.ie.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck one of the two keeps of Antiqueight. You can add keep to your rationale only once, further comments are to be preceded by Comment. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 07:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mention elsewhere (so partially merge whatever necessary content) as this seems questionably notable by itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst the current article is not in the best shape, UCDSU is an important union in broader student and national politics in Ireland. I can't understand why this UCDSU is deemed unimportant enough to delete when most of the other major college's SUs have pages (as can be seen in the categories at the bottom), why is seen as expendable in comparison of TCD, DIT, UL etc. Seems rather arbitrary to delete it. Smirkybec (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Smirkybec, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you believe it is an important union, can you verify this with reliable sources? Without that, we can't consider it notable. Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have any horses in this race, and given that I don't have the time at the moment to do any hardcore editing, I will leave any improvements to other editors. It just seems odd to me that one of the oldest SUs in Ireland would be nominated over other poorer SU articles. There is no denying that numerous important politicians and others have made their way up the ranks starting in this union, and just because this editor doesn't have time to improve the article doesn't mean that others shouldn't be afforded the opportunity! Those are my two cents, over and out! Smirkybec (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia." There is an entire template for Students' Unions in Ireland

and every single other university student union in the country has an article on it. So do most universities in the UK. This is a valid use of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, rather than your just dropping it in as shutdown. Blorg (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above reasons ant_ie (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ant ie, the 'above reasons' don't add up to much more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Can you explain why you think it meets the guidelines, WP:ORG or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." Blorg (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There are thousands of references to UCD Students Union in the Irish newspaper of record, the Irish Times, [6] and that is only going back to 1996. This clearly establishes notability according to WP:GNG Blorg (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a 40-year old organisation, the largest student union in the largest university in Ireland, with countless references in the national media (Irish Times, Irish Independent) going back decades, that has been instrumental in many social changes in Irish society, such as the fight for access to abortion information in the 1980s/1990s. Honestly nominating this for deletion is a joke, it is obviously notable. User nominating this obviously has an agenda, yes the article could be better but nominating for deletion in the hope that will light a fire under people to improve it is an abuse of the deletion process. Blorg (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Blorg, this has been tagged for notability for eight years because people have looked at it but struggled to establish notability one way or the other. To accuse me of having an 'agenda' (not sure what that would be) or 'abuse' of process isn't OK. We can disagree, that's fine, but there's no need to attack each other. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How exactly does almost 2,000 references in the Irish Times, the newspaper of record for Ireland, not establish notability? Blorg (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the notability tag from the article as it seems to have been the tag that you are taking issue with rather than the question of whether the article subject is actually notable. I've left the relies too much on primary sources tag, as yes it does, but this is a separate matter to notability. Blorg (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once this is decided I will try to fix the article. If the references to the Union in every major media outlet in Ireland is considered insufficient to show notability there is no point in fixing it. 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 21:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blorg, you have misunderstood, the tag is the symbol of the issue, it is not the issue. The issue, as has been discussed here, is whether this is notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, I dispute that as multiple people have pointed out to you that there are thousands of references to this organisation in Irish national newspapers, going back decades, but you are refusing to even address that point, preferring just to lazily throw Wikipedia policy statements at people (and not replying when it is demonstrated how you are misusing these policy statements).

The tag is there, and has remained there for eight years, because no-one has been arsed removing it in those eight years, not because "people have looked at it but struggled to establish notability" as you disingenuously assert. Look at that talk page, there is no discussion on notability. The tag is not there because people have been valiantly trying but failing to establish notability for eight years, it's there because the article is shit and has got little attention from anyone over the last eight years, other than people annually updating the list of officers (and that section could probably go, I agree). But that an article is shit does not mean that it's subject is non-notable, these are two separate issues and you are abusing process by bringing this to AfD and disingenuously alleging non-notability on the part of the subject.

This is a pure circlejerk over procedure here, the subject of the article is obviously notable, two seconds on Google would clear that up for you but you prefer to have your little Wikipedia procedural circlejerk over the whole thing rather than just plugging the name of the organisation into a Google search. This is the largest student union in Ireland, (and I've included three references to each of Ireland's three quality national newspapers stating that specifically), an organisation which has been continually covered and considered notable by the national media for decades, if this is not notable, almost no student union is notable, yet you don't seem to be off trying to delete the hoards of other articles about student unions all over Wikipedia.

And note, here, I don't disagree that quality of the article is poor, and I don't disagree that it relied too much on primary sources, but these are separate issues from the actual notability of the subject of the article and your listing it here is a clear abuse of process. There are other processes (like the issues boxes at the top) for articles that are sub-par, the deletion process concerns the subject of the article, not the article itself. So take it to Articles needing cleanup, or highlight it on one of the Wikiprojects concerning Ireland or Irish education or Irish politics... if you actually cared about that, and it might improve the article (which is shit, I have no issue with that, it's a really bad article).

Anyway, I have contributed a new "History" section and dumped a metric shit ton of secondary references to the Union into the article, including multiple references from all three quality Irish national newspapers, The Irish Times, The Irish Independent and The Irish Examiner, as well as the national broadcaster, RTE. I hope this is enough for you and you can now go off and try to passive aggressively delete some other obviously notable articles. Honestly this sort of procedural politicking, where the focus becomes the internal Wiki procedure, is why I gave up contributing to Wikipedia ten years ago. Blorg (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going into detail referring to your personal and unnecessary comments, I have given my opinion. And many people have looked over this article over the years, I'm part of the project which has been going through tagged articles, so I'm well aware that it was left till last as problematic - not because it was a bad article (we have thousands of them) but because through Google they couldn't establish its notability. Many people have questioned its notability, including the tagger and other people here - and it's OK for people to disagree on notability, or not spot sources others have now added. A lot of good points have been made here, but I don't see why it has turned into a personal attack, I'm guessing because you feel you've had poor experiences on WP in the past. Can we just comment on the article's notability, nothing else is relevant (and both you and I have probably said all we have to say on that point). Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came back to this AfD as a user left a comment on my page because I'm an Irish person, and a graduate of University College Dublin, and thus have a bit better an idea of the subject's notability that you do... I don't have any association with UCDSU in particular other than having been a member like every other student during my tenure there (like hundreds of thousands of other people).

Again, you are refusing to actually address any of the points made to you, instead going for an ad hominem and throwing around Wikipedia procedural circlejerk nonsense which you then refuse to address when anyone calls you on it. "Can we just comment on the article's notability"... well people have, and you refuse to engage with them, other than just regurgitating Wikipedia policies in their face which you haven't even read.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." You are using it in exactly this fashion, as an abuse of procedure. You are refusing to engage the valid points he made, instead just throwing Wikipedia policies at him without even reading them. Justify your application of this policy, don't just lazily throw it at him.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia." They are, I linked the articles on other Irish and other UK student unions. You do not address.

WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." It has, I have included references over several decades from all three quality national newspapers and the national broadcaster. You do not address.

Notability. Please provide evidence that people have been trying to establish notability for this article over several years. All I see is your sending it to AfD once before in November and then again now. Where is this extensive discussion you allege happened? Where are the multiple people claiming to have attempted to establish notability through Google but reported failing. Citation needed.

Given that I and others have provided you with countless references to secondary sources, and you are refusing to actually question these sources, please put forward an argument as to how thousands of references in Irish national newspapers and by the national broadcaster do not establish notability.

But you aren't actually going to address any of these points, and by god you aren't going to just concede that the subject might actually be notable, because you aren't actually interested in that, you are just interested in the Wikipedia procedural circlejerk. Blorg (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Boleyn, here's a point by point analysis of how if you actually read WP:ORG this organisation actually qualifies. I don't expect you are actually going to address any of these points, though, as you don't address anything other than just throwing Wikipedia policies at people without reading them:

Depth of coverage The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Google searches of Irish national newspapers return thousands of results and scores of articles over decades have been provided that deal with the Union and its activities as the primary subject.

Audience The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. Evidence has been provided of significant coverage by national media.

Independence of sources A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Scores of references have been provided from articles in the national media which are completely independent of the Union itself.

Illegal conduct There is a possibility that an organization that is generally not notable will have a number of references if they have engaged in illegal acts, or it is alleged that they have engaged in illegal acts. The Union has engaged in several illegal acts, specifically around the provision of contraception and abortion information, with the aim of of forcing legal change in Ireland. In the latter instance the case went as far as the Supreme Court of Ireland and established several important judicial precedents concerning standing in Irish law, and ultimately as far as the European Court of Justice [7], which established that under the Treaty of Rome abortion was a service and a Member State could not prohibit the distribution of information about a service legally provided in another Member State. The Irish government responded to this decision by legislating to expressly permit the provision of abortion information. Blorg (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Morgan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests convincingly better for a better notable encyclopedia article, no better sourcing and information. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Been up 3 weeks and there's barely been any discussion so closing as No Consensus with No Prejudice Against Speedy Renomination.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beheaded (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. No consensus at 2013 AfD. Hopefully, we'll reach a consensus this time, one way or the other. This has been tagged for notability for almost 8 years. Boleyn (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep to perhaps also Draft and userfy as there is some current coverage and "Beheaded death metal band Malta" found some links, albeit not always solid, at Books and News. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bomberos (band)[edit]

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

Side project for well-known musicians. This particular band, however, has no major releases or tours. No real sources in the article either. Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this current article and its sourcing suggests even minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator summed it up correctly. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there are not enough sources to be able to write a satisfactory article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kubera (manhwa)[edit]

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

Every single reference in the article is either to the comic itself, the comic author's blog, or a Wikia page. I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability (although I was limited a bit by the abilities of Google Translate for Korean sources). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article essentially lacks any references. Unless they exist and can be added from reliable secondary sources, it warrants deletion for now. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The aforementioned references are now gone and have been replaced. This webtoon has a Korean fan base of 144,000+ and the English-speaking fan base continues to grow (no stats provided by Webtoons). Secondary sources are difficult to find because the author is notorious for keeping tight control over her work, and publishes under a pseudonym (as do many Korean webtoon authors). But I tried. Variegated yarn (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Korea Times citation doesn't even mention this webtoon. Are there other Korean sources that mention the webtoon by name? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a news article blog that mentions the comic among six manhwa titles. [8] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is just my personal preference. But why not leave this article available for those, like myself, who want to use it? JRSpriggs (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There really doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. There's always Wikia if you want to edit the article without worrying about notability and such. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy until better as the current article is questionably solid. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How can one improve an article which does not exist? It needs to be there in order to fix it. Also being under a death sentence (Afd) inhibits people from improving the article. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 12:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Drungle[edit]

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

Copyright & notability issues. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 20:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to put it mildly. The text is copied promotion, but speedy deletion was declined by an admin. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is questionable for the applicable notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, based upon this discussion and the previous consensus found at the last AFD. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy coding[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Northeastern US residents sometimes use the term "Cowboy" derogatorily to mean reckless or irresponsible. Sticking the word "Cowboy" in front of the word "Coding" doesn't make it a software development philosophy. It is a Neologism - it just means the same thing as "Cowboy-anything" but applied to code.

The first attempt to delete this article failed because Google has roughly 270 hits on "Cowboy Coding." I could not find *any* that are noteworthy. Most link to this article as their source! Wikipedia has a No Original Research policy which this article clearly violates.

The idea behind this article has some merit, in the sense that there can be an absence of development methodology in the same way that Anarchy is the absence of Government. But someone needs to articulate that much better than this article currently does. The article Software Development Process:Other has a section called "Code and Fix" that seems to roughly summarize this article. Maybe that section could be expanded? Also Capability Maturity Model Level 1 seems like the same idea. Actually, I think that's the closest match to the concept of development anarchy.

One person wrote that the term Rapid Application Development is sometimes used when companies don't want to admit that they have no formal development process. Maybe a section should be added there to say a little more about that. Maybe a list of maverick software developers should be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenPeterson (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 February 2016‎

Here is the talk from the first attempt at deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cowboy_coding — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenPeterson (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 February 2016‎

Keep The term is reliably sourced and meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that? Two entries from the c2.com wiki (see Wiki is not Wikipedia) and Mick West's personal web site (which starts its definition with a link to this article in Wikipedia) do not constitute reliable sources in my estimation. The reference to Google's 20% Time does not use the words "Cowboy Coding". I don't have a copy of Software Project Management by Hughes/Cotterell to check that reference, so it's possible that 1 out of the 5 sources **could** be legitimate. With all the programming resources available online, that is the best the world could come up with in the 8 years this article has been around? Instead of making vague "the sources are out there" statements, it's time to see those sources if people want to save this article.GlenPeterson (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Ward Cunningham's blog is not a reliable source on software development terms? I added more sources from a software development website. I think the problem, based on your comments on your talk page and the article's talk page, is that it's an term used by American software developers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources. Andrew D. (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gitmo detainees Ghana transfer controversy. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Mohammed Salih al-Dhuby[edit]

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

Nothing seemed notable about this person. This appears to be eligible for deletion per WP:BLP1E Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gitmo detainees Ghana transfer controversy. Coverage, here:[9] is so minimal that it makes more sense to consolidate this into the other article on this non-notable prisoner created by same editor on same day.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is here because we should evaluate notability. Small coverage is irrelevant if the coverage is about a notable event or person. Being a Guantanamo "resident" is.. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you measure WP:BLP1E eligibility? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this is not yet independently notable, only known as part of the event. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not everyone detained at Guantanamo Bay is notable for that fact alone. We have deleted hundreds of articles on such detainees because not all are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Timbaland. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timbaland Thursday[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, is not sourced. If needed, list can easily be incorporated into Timbaland discography and does not need its own article. Soetermans. T / C 14:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At best and at worst, this looks like it would make a pretty good redirect to the Timbaland article or related, as this does appear to be an official website by Timbaland. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 23:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this is conceivably not independent notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Ifeanyichukwu Josiah Iluno[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Sources provided are self-published and primary sources Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the article is not wholly faulted by WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Sources [3] and [4] are not self-published and primary sources.105.112.33.30 (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.33.30 (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The nominator is correct in noting that most of the article's sources are either self-published or primary. Even the article from the Guardian (November 29) is largely just a rehash of statements made by several clerics at a "debate". Although not self-published, it is still primary and, in any event, is not about the subject. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Lebedinsky[edit]

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

Only claim to notability seems to be being interviewed about his notable friend. This has been tagged for notability for 8 years, hopefully we can get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The article as it stands is definitely weaker than it could be, but does provide a second fairly clear claim to notability - as a leading member (in fact, chairman) of the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians (RAPM) for several years around 1930, and thus a person whose unfavourable opinion at that time could severely threaten or destroy the careers of Soviet musicians of the time (including, of course, Shostakovich). I might also mention (though I don't think that it has that much effect on his notability) that Lebedinsky seems, as well as giving interviews, to have written several articles about Shostakovich and his music. Turning to the GBooks hits - many are indeed just quoting Lebedinsky about Shostakovich. However, a significant number of other sources do also raise questions about Lebedinsky's veracity and the genuineness of his friendship with Shostakovich (this one, probably, in greatest detail). And quite a few, about a variety of composers, instead deal with his earlier RAPM activities - some, again, fairly briefly but others (such as this biography of Nikolai Myaskovsky) at greater length. (And please note that both the sources I have given refer to Lebedinsky in several different places - so searching within them is a good idea.) Perhaps a relatively minor character, but one with two separate claims to notability which, however, are perceived to interact rather oddly. PWilkinson (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His entry in the Russian wiki has more details and sources. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 last surviving World War I veterans by country. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August Bischof[edit]

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

No sources and reads in its entirety "August Bischof (18 August 1900 – 4 March 2006) was, at age 105, the last living Austrian World War I veteran." which suggests he lacks notability Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The last living veteran of a major war from a major country is going to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Seems like the article needs to be expanded, not deleted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable, non-trivial sources can be found that establish notability per WP:N. Notability is based on guidelines and sources, not what we feel subjectively is notable. Canadian Paul 18:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject is on this list List_of_last_surviving_World_War_I_veterans_by_country with a reference in French that says exactly what this article says and no more. The French source looks more like a blog on a subdomain of free.fr (a free hosting service?) and is definitely not a major news outlet or academic source. Therefore this page provides no information the list does not and per WP:NOPAGE we should keep his name on the list. As the only source says so little, yet covers other people with somewhat more people, it seems unlikely this page can be expanded. I found that there was an effort by the author and others to create articles about every last veteran by country, but if there is nothing to say about them that seems misguided. Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outliving all the other vetarans of a given conflict is not notable in and of itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country] at best and delete if needed because the keep votes suggest this be kept and expanded but it's unlikely any solid information is going to be available especially if he was best known for his age. He's best connected to the article I linked above so it's likely best this be moved there. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A clear consensus to keep following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

America (Spanish automobile)[edit]

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

An article about a car produced in Spain in the early 20th century. This article has no sources, but a quick Google search finds that this article is a copy and paste from another source. It is very short and is not worth being an article on its own. Will211 (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 07:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – this likely isn't copy-and-pasted from another source. Since this article was created in 2004, Wikipedia's license means that it can be copied to other websites. Apparently a website called World Heritage Encyclopedia mirrored Wikipedia, then Gutenberg mirrored it. sst ✈ 07:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Faintly ridiculous to claim that such a short article has been copy and pasted. We usually keep articles on all automobile marques, however short-lived they may have been. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be notable. The source used for this article may be the book mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 1#David Burgess Wise's Encyclopedia. The German Wikipedia article cites more sources. Peter James (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long-term WP:CONSENSUS is that individual makes and models of automobiles are notable. Additional sources are available; see also WP:TOOLITTLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bushranger - I can add content as per requirements, cannot see any problems regarding notability... NordicDragon Talkpage 12:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universities medical assessment partnership[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. I took it to AfD last year, but only two responses and ended in no consensus. I'm re-nominating to try to get a consensus, one way or the other, after eight years of being tagged for notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This med student's survival guide is about as close as I can get to signifcant coverage in a reliable source, but even that contains less than a handful of information. Other GBooks hits are merely passing mentions. There are more passing mentions in GScholar, but nothing at all in GNews, ergo: fails WP:GNG. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martina May Martin[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence that she meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. At best, worth a redirect to her husband. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Fram. Boleyn (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't really seem to be any coverage of her archived anywhere. It's entirely possible that there's offline coverage that hasn't been digitized, and the article can be recreated with better sourcing if this exists. A redirect could work, too, but I'm not convinced it's necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poulos family[edit]

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

This is an unremarkable subject on an unremarkable group of characters from a television program. Delete or possible redirect. No independent notability. KDS4444^Talk 06:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 07:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added two closely related articles. No vote on the deletion but any arguments would apply.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Costa "Con" Bordino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nick Poulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the two articles listed directly above have also been nominated for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results look like fansites and Wikipedia mirrors. I opened up my searches to find more results but still got pretty much nothing. It's a slightly older TV series, but the details should still be documented somewhere on the Internet if it was on during the late 1990s. My reading is that the characters are not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Under Fire[edit]

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

Prod removed, from non-notable book. Coverage is all from book sales websites or conspiracy theory websites with little or no evidence of peer review, thus failing reliable sources. Can't find a signicant enough coverage in something that would pass our WP:RS requirements. Sadads (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I have been around Wikipedia for a while (and this is my first post in several years), I am new to the idea the of "notable book." I get notability, but I have not heard until now of its application to books. -- RayBirks

Delete - Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google searches reveal that it's on sale at Amazon.com, and that's pretty much it. No independent results returned on a Google Scholar search. I don't think this made any impact, nor does it seem to have gotten any reviews in the obvious places. It shouldn't have been deprodded. A {{trout}} to the person who did that and added a citation to Goodreads. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abel James[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a blogger and podcaster, with no strong reliable sourcing to support it. Almost everything here is a primary source or a commercial sales page for his products, and the only one that's actual media is a blurb's worth of coverage in People — which isn't a good or substantive enough source to get a person into Wikipedia if it's the best source on offer. There's also been sourcing stripped from the article, on the order of his own self-published blog, Hulu and circular referencing to other Wikipedia articles — none of which are valid sourcing, so restoring them won't help. He might qualify for a properly sourced article, but that doesn't mean he gets to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks adequate sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still not enough convincing sources to suggest better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lindsay (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. The second citation in the article, from The Globe and Mail, doesn't even mention him by name. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability, and they certainly don't meet either WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:ACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with nothing to suggest better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FOI Online Awards[edit]

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

Online awards of no known notability. Can't find any secondary or tertiary sources considering it notable. Fails WP:GNG. Awards have to be notable, not the recipients to whom they are thrown at. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support for Deletion: This article has zero notability and it should be deleted immediately.Krish | Talk 07:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organizer's Speak: The organizers of awards are least bothered for its 'notable' work and event management to be questioned on such platform, where unsuitable and probably biased users find it 'not notable'. Congratulations users, you have done a very 'notable' task by doing this, you showed what a 'notable' examiners you are. Sources can't be created for users like you, who destroys the very first step of creation. The award organizers already have much respect and lot of public appreciation being one of the most renowned film institute in India, who itself have many people from Bollywood and South Indian film industries and whom you might have already edited on Wikipedia platform. We are happy with the response we received on our personal portal, and have least interest whether you delete the article or not, it doesn't harms our need. Public voting for our first edition is a massive success and probably the event too. You keep copying, pasting and cutting, that's what you 'notable' users are meant for!61.12.32.76 (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now perhaps as this is questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete until its Announcement: The article has now been included in WikiProject Film, WikiProject India and WikiProject Awards and prizes. The topic is gaining importance on social media too. Question on its notability is doubtful at the moment. Deletion might be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.32.76 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the "[we] have least interest whether you delete the article or not" speech? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per failing WP:ORG. This is a brand new deal and no one is speaking about it except themselves. If this every gets some meadia coverage, the topic might e reconsidered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OSx16[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NSOFT, This appears to be a operating system created by a hobbyist and not used or mentioned elsewhere. Guy Macon (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale given by nom (which is the same rationale I gave earlier to delete this article via WP:PROD). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the only mentions of OSx16 are on (non-WP:RS) forums for Atari-enthusiasts. Wikipedia also isn't for promoting own work (the creator of OSx16 has the same name as the user who created the article here...). Thomas.W ^talk 16:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony LaPine[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject is notable per WP:BIO. The majority of the sources cited are not online, but factiva covers the time period when the sources were published and I can only find articles about his company, rather than him. Searches in google books turned up a few brief mentions and I also found a brief mention in the NYT but that's a long way off substantial. He's also gone by the name of Tony but searches for either name and memorex, ibm, semotus or datalink haven't turned up anything useful. SmartSE (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and draft & userfy as none of this convinces a better notable article and my searches found quite a few links at Books but some of them apparently were for other people. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTGUIDE. Article does not seem to be encyclopedic, but is just a comparison of websites. Bazonka (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider renaming to List of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom. There is nothing wrong with having detailed lists of items which have some shared characteristics - see Comparison of crowdfunding services, Comparison of video codecs, and countless others. WP:NOTGUIDE does not really apply to list-type articles which, by their nature, cannot delve into minute details of the items they list. Personally, I am perfectly fine with articles titled List of... – although I have reservations with regard to Comparison of... since such titles suggest a substantial degree of WP:OR (comparing things is a creative work; mere listing them is not); hence my rename suggestion. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename if this can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very subjective subject with figures changing constantly. A few months from now, this page will look as some irrelevant amount of figures. And why Britain and not France or USA or Russia? What's so special about the UK? Wikipedia pages are not for publishing most recent stats about this or that local or regional organization. Delete altogether. werldwayd (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify your argument please? Is it WP:UPTODATE or WP:ITSLOCAL? — kashmiri ^TALK 23:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO: Statistical information that is very hard to keep up to date, that is insufficiently sourced, and of limited (local) interest. Sandstein 11:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article content is DEFINITELY NOT indiscriminate (IINFO). — kashmiri ^TALK 12:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think there are very practical problems with keeping a page like this: they might easily quickly go out of date. Whilst it at first seems obvious that the page may be of some use to someone looking to donate in the UK, we also have to bear in mind that should any of these services increase or reduce their fees, wikipedia may unwittingly be giving the unwary advice to use one rather than another based on old information. I think that's too much of a risk. In terms of policy, I think this fits somewhere near point 5 of WP:NOTADVERTISING and whilst I see the keep arguments and see the good faith of editors adding to the page, I don't think this is what wikipedia is for. We can't keep content that needs to be regularly updated otherwise it might give a commercial advantage to one product over another IMO. JMWt (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument can be made about any other "Comparison..." type article. Comparison of web browsers for instance. Or Comparison of email servers. Things change constantly. Evolve. As WP:UPTODATE says, what you wrote should not be used as an argument in deletion discussions - because Wikipedia is a work in progress and cannot limit itself to well-maintained articles only. Also, listing several independently notable things along each other has nothing to do with advertising. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that argument, but there is a clear difference in my view between this kind of page and other possible comparison pages; which is that they're listing and comparing the fees and service information between commercial brands. My argument is not really WP:UPTODATE because I'm not talking about the general situation, I appreciate that pages go out of date. I'm talking about this specific situation where we're talking about influencing a commercial relationship the reader of this encylopedia might have with another commercial provider. I don't think we should be a source of information for consumers looking to compare brands for the best price, there are plenty of other web providers that do that much better than we could. JMWt (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't think the other "comparison" pages are really the same thing, as they're discussing the technical details behind the provision of email servers and web browsers respectively. Once we start including the cost comparison of the various services, then we're into totally different territory in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this place, an AfD discussion, is about whether the topic is suitable to remain on Wikipedia; it is not about a single chart. If you consider the fee table inappropriate, why don't you propose removing it on the Talk page, or simply are BOLD and remove it? Requesting deletion of the entire article because of a single chart in it feels somewhat over the top. As for articles that contain price comparisons, it's an interesting topic but unfortunately I don't know the policy (if there is one). Maybe someone could guide? — kashmiri ^TALK 19:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz AlNasrallah[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST JMHamo (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not satisfy WP:GNG either. The subject is himself the main source of the current references so they are not independent. By doing a search for news or books I could find only one additional independent reliable source, but it included just a single mention of the subject which can be classified as trivial coverage and does not contribute to establishing notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Periodicity[edit]

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

Pretty much all of the dab entries are partial matches at best (with the possible exception of "Principle of periodicity" - which isn't mentioned in the linked article), and I haven't been able to track any eligible ones down. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obviously necessary DAB page that provides a perfectly reasonable directory of different meanings of "periodicity" mostly in math and science. All the entries in the list seem on-point to me, so it's not clear what the nominator is objecting to. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:Partial title matches. How are, for example, periodic trends and Periodic mapping synonymous with periodicity? What is Fourier series doing there? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first two describe two meanings of "periodicity" in chemistry and mathematics, respectively. The third is the only arguable case as the meaning of "periodicity" there is the same as in periodic function. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the purpose of a WP:DPAGE. No doubt an article could be written about periodicity: what's there now isn't it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful. The disambiguation is used thousands of times a month and someone would definitely be looking for one of those topics. Deletion would be harmful as it would be harder for someone to get to one of those topics. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not necessary to invoke IAR here - note that this is also the disambiguation page for periodic, and covers the multiple meanings of that term. This is the purpose of a disambiguation page, per WP:DAB. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a properly constructed DAB page doing a necessary job and serving users well all the time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All entries in the article are all wikilinked and thanks to Northamerica1000 can easily be sourced, As an aside the deletion rationale isn't a reason for deletion and technically I could close this as Speedy Keep per WP:SK1 but that'd be pointy and now rather quite pointless!... Anyway clear keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of charitable foundations[edit]

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

This list could get extremely large unless scoped appropriately. Really it's essentially acting as an alphabetical category list. Suggest change to List of Global charitable foundations, or List of International charitable foundations at the very least; even then I'm not sure what benefit a list has over a category. Aeonx (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I don't find the deletion rationale very clear or persuasive. Yes, this could grow to a very large list but I don't believe potential size of list is a reason to delete rather than, say, split if necessary. The suggestions for potential name changes don't require an Afd at all: this sort of thing should be discussed on the talk page or the page just boldly moved to a new title -- though the current list name seems better than the ones suggested by the nominator, as this does not appear to be a list reserved for charitable foundations that work globally or internationally? Finally, WP:CLN does outline how categories, lists, and navigation templates can all co-exist. So, unless I'm missing something -- which is possible, I don't work that much with lists -- I say keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn in Montreal (talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:LISTN and also retain per WP:LISTPURP. The topic passes WP:LISTN, having been discussed "as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2] ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12]. Per WP:LISTPURP this has valid functionality for navigation purposes, as demonstrated by the 6,161 page views it received in January 2016. Compare this to Category:Charitable organizations, which only received 304 page views and Category:Foundations, which received 250 page views in January 2016. Many Wikipedia readers do not use categories. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ International Charitable Foundations.
^ Private Funds, Public Purpose: Philanthropic Foundations in International Perspective
^ Charities and charitable foundations.
^ Proceedings of ... Biennial Conference on Charitable Foundations.
^ Foundations for Social Change.
^ "Philanthropy expert Ken Prewitt to discuss 'Do charitable foundations make a difference?'".
^ "Why are Hong Kong's philanthropists so blinkered?". South China Morning Post. 30 January 2016.
^ "Billion dollar benefactors: Minnesota's charitable foundations". Star Tribune.
^ The Long March of Social Innovation - How Charitable Foundations can Contribute Towards Social Change in the Fields of Educatonal and Social Policy.
^ Capital values and growth of charitable foundations
^ An Act for Enabling Trustees of Charitable Foundations to Rpomote the Purposes and Extend the Benifit of the Fame. Published in 1790.
^ The charitable foundations of Byzantium. Published in 1926.

Delete per NOTDIR. Too broad and vague to serve an encyclopedic purpose; in my experience, these kinds of list pages end up being just magnets for promotional editing. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 17:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – for the reasons outlined by Northamerica1000. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:GNG alone is sufficient, regardless of what WP:ARTIST says. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Baerg[edit]

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

I think this is borderline, but after being unresolved for notability for 8 years, I want to get it resolved, and I couldn't establish that he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like a puff piece and subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he just meets WP:GNG. In addition to the Toronto Star article on him that's already in the Wikipedia article, we see this story on him from the University of Manitoba newspaper Manitoban, this piece in webzine Mixedbagmag and this coverage by CBC News. My own personal rule of thumb for "multiple" sources is three and I think he just meets that, when taken as a whole. I agree with the nominator that it's borderline but I land just over the other side of that line. I don't think he meets any of the other criteria of WP:ARTIST btw. His work has been exhibited but not significantly enough, at this time, from what I can see. So I do believe it's GNG or bust. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources have been found as above, I think WP:GNG has been passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are more references than currently listed in the article, but any claim to notability is weak, and I think he fails almost all notability criteria for Creative professionals. Per WP:ARTIST: 1) He is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2) He is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3) His work has not been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4a) His work has not become a significant monument. 4b) His work has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. 4c) His work has not won significant critical attention. 4d) His work is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. This claim: "He has won several art awards from the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council" is an exaggeration. As far as I can tell, he has won the Emerging Artist Award for the Premier’s Awards for Excellence in the Arts and was awarded one grant from the Canada Council. I can't find any sources that call the Emerging Artist Award 'prestigious'. Unlike receiving a notable award, receiving a grant does not make an artist notable. Mduvekot (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been advised ( see Richard Alexander discussion on WP:NACTOR) that the above quoted rules are actually guidelines to help indicate whether an artist is likely to be covered in reliable sources and passWP:GNG. That he passes WP:GNG through significant reliable sources coverage makes him notable even though he may fail WP:ARTIST. Similarly, if an artist passes some of the criteria of WP:ARTIST but has no coverage in RS ( which happens) he cannot pass WP:GNG.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Visual artist gets financially creative". thestar.com.
^ "Canadian artist bounces into Park". Sherwood Park News.
^ "Running 2from Home".
^ "Artists score points at North American Indigenous Games".
^ "Artists urged to share culture". The New Zealand Herald.

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilshire Regent[edit]

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

Publicity puff. No WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added more reliable sources. Not sure what you considered to be publicity but I removed price data in case that was it (though many condominium building articles have price data). Article is certainly in line with other articles about condominium buildings. Jfc4me 10:17, 13 December 2015 (PST)

Hello, all. I still don't see any sources that make this building so WP:Notable. If it were, then the Los Angeles Times or some other neutral source would have commented on it. Also, just because WP:Other stuff exists doesn't necessarily mean that this article should exist as well. So I don't think it should be in the encyclopedia until we get more comment on it elsewhere. Yours in Wikidom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no comment on the nomination itself. @BeenAroundAWhile: Please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO for future nominations. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 20:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Speiser[edit]

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

I don't think this guy is notable. The Amercian Brachytherapy Society, of which he was president, may be ok but there are very few sources for the man himself (614 GHits here, including LinkedIn etc). The cited obituary is a paid-for classified in the New York Times and everything else mentioned is typical stuff for a "minor" researcher. Sitush (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. However, generally medical publications won't exhibit the same fame as basic physics and mathematics in the mainstream press. There tend to be significantly more publications for medical research (in this case only a few were cited but there are more for this physician and researcher) to document research results, which build on each other to the ultimate improvements that will pass FDA approval as new therapies. And in looking at a given piece, like this one, it shows a very high citation rate (31 citations) with subsequent discoveries in treatments for lung cancer) https://scholar.google.com/scholar?safe=off&espv=2&biw=1263&bih=622&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc&ion=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=14880646036521840522

This doctor also invented what became known as the Speiser Needle (a needle within a needle for delivering radioactive treatments to tumors). However the only source I have online for that right now is the following (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf2/k020015.pdf) and so am hoping there will be more sources forthcoming to add to this part of the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pellamayor (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 03:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 03:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 03:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can find sources somewhere then great but if they aren't discussing him then he is unlikely to be notable. Even the Speiser Needle might possibly be a notable device without Speiser himself being a notable person per se. We'd just mention him in an article about that device and, if it existed, perhaps redirect this article to that one. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K. M. Akbar Ali[edit]

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

Prod removed by IP user without comment. My concern was Fails GNG, No indication of what actually makes him a notable athlete. Appears to have been involved in some court case but this would probably be a case of BLP1E Gbawden (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:COATRACK. Appears to have been created by/for an area man who was a local athlete at one time, and is now embroiled in some form of dispute with local officials. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, especially WP:BLP and WP:ATHLETE. Delta13C (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lacks non-trivial coverage by independent sources. This division of parent company doesn't warrant its own article. Brycehughes (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no signs of anything obviously and convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Stratasys, its parent company. No information to indicate this subsidiary is sufficiently notable to deserve its own article separate from its parent. SJK (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article is found to be original research, and therefore not suitable for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament Baptism, the symbolic significance[edit]

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

Article about a concept in the Bible, written in an essay format about interpretations of that concept's symbolism rather than as a neutral encyclopedia article about it. And the sourcing is only to the Bible verses that are being interpreted, which means that this is original research. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is original research, and considering that there's an existing (and better) article on the subject at Baptism, there's no need for any of this content to be kept. /wiae /tlk 20:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator and Wiae -- this is original research from a single-purpose account. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article entitled "New Testament Baptism, the symbolic significance" adds to reader understanding of the concept of New Testament baptism. The existing article on the subject of baptism takes a broad view and involves practices far beyond first century. Furthermore, despite the statements to the contrary within the article cited to support the assertion, the current article on baptism even regards these practices as early practices as inconsequential ^[1] (3.4). Finally, the baptism article cites extra-Biblical sources, which clearly lies beyond that stated scope of this alternative examination of the Biblical concept.

The argument that this article is simply a retelling of the existing article is without merit, as the "Baptism" article has the following cursory mention of the events described in "New Testament Baptism, the symbolic significance":

"The liturgy of baptism for Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist makes clear reference to baptism as not only a symbolic burial and resurrection, but an actual supernatural transformation, one that draws parallels to the experience of Noah and the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea divided by Moses"

Notice the mention of these events are within a different context, and unlike the "New Testament Baptism, the symbolic significance," this excerpt from the "Baptism" article offers no support for its conclusions.

The definition of encyclopedia includes information "from a particular branch of knowledge" ^[2]. By the references cited, this analysis of the two symbolic uses of baptism adheres to the hermeneutic principles of contextual analysis, a method of textual analysis favored by many theologians.

To call the article a primary source or original research is a misnomer since all of the events discussed occurred in or before the first century and by definition, a primary source is a "source of information that was created at the time under study" ^[3],

The author of article chose to compose this article using a scholarly tone and took great pains to remove statement that were unwarranted by the examination of the texts presented. No statements are offered without evidence. It would not be difficult to add the conclusions of extra-biblical authors, but that would neither add to the examination or alter the conclusion made obvious by the examination of the examples.

Those advocating deletion of this article have pointed to no specifics. Furthermore any criticism of its form or bias could easily be applied to the existing article on baptism. Tthe author of this article has attempted to address any fair concerns that have been voiced and will continue to address any specific concerns. In the reply above, the author has attempted to address the generalizations leveled at the article in the hope that the article will continue to be allowed to do what encyclopedias should do: contribute to the body of knowledge and information on the topics it addresses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3fifthsofaMan (talk • contribs) 04:28, 3 February 2016‎

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism#Inconsequential_Views_Before_AD_300
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

Delete. As noted above, it's original research citing primary sources. Specifically, the majority of sources cited are the Bible itself; there are no citations to published scholarly analysis to support the positions. —C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maher Meshaal[edit]

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

Fails general notability and music bio criteria, created by single purpose account adding promotional material about ISIL. -- Callinus (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree this is not a notable article, maher meshaal was featured on Saudi TV in a nasheed competition and he was the producer of the most famous songs of IS. You are being unfair on the account, it is well sourced with reliable sources and the article isn't written in a promotional way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I created this page, not sure how you can assert this is a SPA or promotional based on a single page creation and two attempted picture adding, tthis is simply a subject I'm interested in. Maher meshaal is obviously a notable figure, as evidenced by his history and that many sources reported his death. Not sure how the chief song producer of the main news item every single day could not be notable...The article is reliably sourced and I think it is a useful contribution to the wiki. Dave19932016 (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 08:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 08:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 08:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this for a third time with the hope that we can get some actual discussion on this. Does the community find the coverage on the death of Meshaal to be sufficient to pass WP:GNG, or does it fall under WP:NOTNEWS etc? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep we have many articles on midlevel ISIL people and some are more poorly sourced or detailed due to limited info available. This is not overly promotional. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps for now as the current coverage may be a start and familiar attention may also be needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep we have articles on minor Nazis, and he appears to have attained a degree of notoriety.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2305[edit]

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

Fails WP:TWODABS. The primary topic should be the year in the 24th century, so 2305 should redirect to there. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 08:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked for further entries and added 2305 BC. I can't see that 2305 AD (a year far in the future with no significance) is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the year 2305 BC, a year which has occurred and things happened in (although still with very few looking it up. Non-notable asteroid, which redirects elsewhere, is apartial match and belongs in see also. Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years alerting them to this AfD. PamD 12:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - TWODABS is not failed as there are three possible targets. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - basis of nomination of WP:2DABS isn't valid, as there are 3 topics listed. Nfitz (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Redirect to 24th century and add hatnote there pointing to asteroid: looking at the "What links here" for 24th century and 24th century BC (you need to click on "hide links" to avoid all the ones from templates) it seems apparent that there is a redirect from every "23nn" to the century and from every "23nn BC" to the BC century. There are not 100 hatnotes at 24th century saying "23nn redirects here; for 23nn BC see 24th century BC". There are two hatnotes, to a novel and a film; a third hatnote, to the asteroid, is all that's needed for 2305. PamD 10:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Amended to "Redirect" for clarity: 10:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing apparently happened, or is booked to happen, in the future. 2305 King is just a big rock. We know that stuff happened in the other 2305, even if we're not sure what it was. Beats the others by a country mile and should get this redirect. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even if she doesn't seem notable, the fact is that she has been covered in multiple reliable sources. Several of those sources deal primarily with her, suggesting that her notability is not merely inherited. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Davina Lewis[edit]

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

Non-notable person in the line of succession to the British throne. Has famous relations but by herself, there is very little notable things she has done. This article is mainly about who she is related to and minor trivial detail about individuals close to her. The article even says that "Lady Davina does not carry out official functions, but does attend family events including royal weddings." How is that notable? Thanks. Re5x (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update:Some thoughts to ponder... Please take a long close look at the article and see if what is on it constitutes notability of the person and not of notable events. Check the sources and see if they are reliable... (Daily Mail?...Royal Central???...The Mirror?...Hello Magazine???!!) Most of the present trivial information can be presented elsewhere as I've mentioned... Again what exactly makes her notable (disregarding her relations) This person, as far as I know, remains a private person and receives the occasional mentions because of her status but these mentions in itself don't establish how she is notable. Take away the tabloid sources and I'm not sure what's left that describes the person in detail... --Re5x (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if we think she's trivial. The fact is that people follow the royals like a national sport. I might not think she's as notable as someone who discovered cancer, for example, but people are interested in her. Yes, she shows up in rag papers, but she's been reported on since her birth, with coverage over time in papers all over the world, as I and others have established. She passes GNG and no other standard need be met.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I searched, even marrying a part-Maori man and giving her kids Maori names does not appear to have garnered more than minimal press mentions. The sentence about her on her Dad's page is sufficient.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a junior member of the world's most renowned reining royal family, a great-granddaughter in the legitimate male-line of George V of the United Kingdom. Her marriage was groundbreaking among European royalty for being the first to a non-White person that required and obtained the Royal Assent, the necessity for that authorization making her a member of a very small class of persons, notable for proximity to the Crown in the Line of succession to the British throne. Events significant in her life are reported in the mainstream media. FactStraight (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe you should include it in the article as it would bring it up to a notable level. NealeFamily (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. FactStraight (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is indeed a great-granddaughter of a monarch but that fact can be mentioned on her father's article. Just because she needed approval for her marriage does not warrant a whole biography on her as it is already can be seen on the Royal Marriages Act 1772 article. Facts about the so called ground-breaking marriage can be mentioned on that article and/or her father's. Please list these notable events which have garnered nobility wherein it was about her and not events where she happened to be a guest or received a passing mention because of her famous relations. Events notable to her personally and not in the greater scheme of things do not really count (mostly as these are just tabloid-ish filler)... Wikipedia is not a genealogical website and being far in the line of succession does not automatically confer notability. Can you establish her notability by her own right? All I ask is to look at her as her own person...--Re5x (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree largely with FactStraight. --Editor FIN (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more news sources. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those sources you've added aren't quite what you'd want to use on a WP:BLP...--Re5x (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources show she is in the public eyes and it shows that people are interested in her the same way people are interested in the Kardashians. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes GNG. Multiple mentions in RS over time are all that is required to meet GNG. She does not have to have done anything to meet WP guidelines; however, her marriage alone is a notable "first". SusunW (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Susun and MLG, clearly notable aristocrat.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here worth having an article on. All that needs to be said on her can be said in the article on her father. She is 28th in line to the throne, that is not a small number. For me the tipping point is that the article points out she has no official duties.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in what you wrote addresses the fact that she passes GNG because of news coverage. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Schwartz[edit]

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

Seems singularly non notable, plus, an unsourced biography of a living person. Various user IDs keep reverting tags/redirects hence bringing to deletion discussion. Mabalu (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, there is coverage: [10] from The New York Times (a brief rundown of up-and-coming YouTube talent), [11] from The Daily Dot (about a parody video she made), [12] from TheWrap (announcement of an original Yahoo! show hosted by her), [13] from Ad Age (very brief mention of another show), and [14] from The Wrap again (anti-bullying stuff). It's not a whole lot, but I think this is probably enough to write a credible but small article. If these SPAs continue to add unsourced biographical details and rumors about her personal life, however, it's likely the article will need to be semi-protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I partially rewrote the article to remove the unsourced personal details and add sources. It makes a little bit more of a claim to notability now than it did before, though it's still kind of a skimpy article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect again as it once was to Shane Dawson as the listed coverage above is something....but still questionable so this can be moved for now until then. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 25 January 2016

(UTC)

Keep As reliable sources have been added to the article I believe the subject passes WP:GNG although not a major celebrity.. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think this is a work in progress. As for the redirect, I think it's inappropriate to redirect to Shane Dawson, as the two broke up. --Benimation (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Created by banned user Orangemoody. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Netent[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any substantial, independent coverage about this company to demonstrate that WP:CORP can be met. SmartSE (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article and its sourcing is questionable, that is, unless better and convincing coverage including Swedish can be found. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. At least this is a company that does something I feel can understand (unlike those management consultant somethings), and it is actually quite successful in its area. A number of Swedish sources can be found, especially by searching for them by their previous longer name, "Net Entertainment" (it also gets quite a few false positives, but I find some decent articles when doing a focused search on Swedish business news sources). I don't have time to look at it right now, but I'd suggest moving this to Draft:Netent. --Hegvald (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Channel value proposition[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. Has been tagged for notability for 8 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Sending WP:APPNOTE to those who have looked at its notability before: Millbrooky and Dave Biskner. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can actually be moved elsewhere although I see no current targets as this is questionable including questionably improvable. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is this a value proposition as applied to a distribution channel? ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 15:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noidea, I'm afraid. Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 06:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ConsumerAffairs[edit]

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

For spam and questionable notability. The entire lede is one long run-on promotion backed by quote-mine passing-mentions & list cites. Article has apparent history of paid editing (or so one gathers from the talk page). Subject business is a sleazy "reputation ransom" site that harvests and solicits negative reviews of companies, all of which are invariably rated 1 star, except for those paying to become an accredited partner (in which case their rating miraculously becomes 4 to 5 stars). No listed sources are specifically about the company except the one exposing it (the "Criticism" section I added a few weeks ago). Froglich (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Most of the gnews is its own site. Lacking third party coverage about the organisation as the subject . LibStar (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Mentions in CNN, CBS, TIME Magazine, Business Insider, Fox News, Fortune and The Washington Post are plenty of third-party coverage. It's honestly surprising to read that an editor would argue otherwise. The OP mentions the subject's policy of how they acquire their ratings but that doesn't have any bearing on whether it should be included on Wikipedia or not--notability is what determines that. I vote keep. CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are non-notable "trivial mentions" in which a reporter, in the context of them writing an article about some other subject, called around for quotations. (It should be noted that ConsumerAffairs' website is a very slick masquerade of a legitimate consumer site, and I can see how it'd be easy to fool someone, such as a lazy journalist, who isn't aware of how the entity actually generates its revenue and lack of reputability consequent.) --Froglich (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a bit worried about a COI here, if the article was neutral it would already have had more about the charging controversy without it having to be added by the editor Froglich Atlantic306 (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just used this article to research a project I am working on. If there is a COI problem, cut that crap right out of the article. What I found useful was the link to TruthInAdvertising.org, where there is a critical article. Jehochman ^Talk 02:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's most important purpose is to be a useful resource. If people come to Wikipedia looking for info about a particular topic, as I did, Wikipedia should provide an article. We most certainly aren't here to spew alphabet soup at other editors. Moreoever, I found the references in the article to be useful. This is a very strong reason to keep an article. Jehochman ^Talk 03:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, the essay you cited said, "Remember, you need to say why the article is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument." If you look right above, up a couple lines, you see I said "I just used this article to research a project I am working on... What I found useful was the link to TruthInAdvertising.org" My comment was exactly following the guidance to state a reason why something is useful. Upon close review your comment mis-represents policy. Jehochman ^Talk 03:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article looks fine to me. I have been using it for referencing. I don’t think that there is sufficient reason for the deletion. Plenty of media citations, far more than many other pages. Edyang (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at best and improve if needed as this is a potential article. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Foxx. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metamatic Records[edit]

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

This record label was created by one artist to release his own work. The recordings are already mentioned at John Foxx and John Foxx discography and many other mostly poorly sourced pages about his albums. The page has no independent references and I was unable to find any coverage about the record company other than brief mentions. If not deleted, the page should be redirected to John Foxx. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if needed and certainly Redirect to John Foxx, as there's seemingly nothing to suggest better attention from him. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Foxx. The results of my searches mirror those of the nominator. !voting redirect instead of delete as "Matamatic" seems a reasonable search term, and reader should be directed to the appropriate topic, Foxx, as Matamatic = John Foxx. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 06:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Fox[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that she meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, nothing suggests better independent notability and I would not suggest moving to Edna Faber as I'm not seeing solid weight there. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was pre-internet, so searching on Newspaper Archive, I found a number of references which I added to the article. It looks like there's more, but I don't have time at the moment to add them. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has many Broadway credits including lead in Stage Door,also many radio credits such as Manhattan at Midnight lead, so I think the actress passes WP:NACTOR see here Atlantic306 (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator I'm impressed with what's beenfound and now think she does meet WP:GNG. SwisterTwister, what do you think of the improvements? Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's something but I'm not entirely certain yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allinea Forge[edit]

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

A search for sources results mostly in incidental mentions or press releases. I couldn't find enough significant, reliable coverage that could establish notability. Interestingly, I can find more coverage for the parent company than the software itself, so if an article is created for the parent, I would not be opposed to a merge there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best perhaps as there's nothing else solid to suggest better satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Miss Global. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 06:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Global 2013[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, no sources conform WP:RS. The few pieces of information can be merged with Miss Global. The Banner talk 07:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's an unneccessay fork of the parent article. Legacypac (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss Global. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Miss Global if needed as this is currently questionable for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Guntur East (Assembly constituency). (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 06:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guntur East[edit]

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

No such settlement found. Even the reference do not support it. Vin09 (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Well, it does exist as a political constituency and we already have the page Guntur East (Assembly constituency) so if it can't be stood up as a locality then a redirect there looks useful. Just Chilling (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if needed as there's nothing better convincing for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Supply chain management#Certification. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 06:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Supply Chain Professional[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously taken to AFD in 2014 with consensus to merge. The article is so full of buzzwords that I can't even penetrate a word of it, so I WP:BOLDly merged, which was undone for no valid reason. Since no one seems to be up to the task, why not just nuke it from orbit? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Supply chain management § Certification, per consensus at the previous AfD discussion. The nominator here states that they merged the article, but this is incorrect. Nothing from the article was added to the Supply chain management article (See Revision history) and the nominator here simply redirected to the merge target (diff), which was reverted by another user with the rationale "Per AfD, no merger was performed, hence undoing redirect until the merge is completed" (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Saying "merge" won't get the merge done. I didn't merge because the article was so ensnared with corporate speak that I felt nothing was salvageable. If you think anything is salvageable, do it yourself; otherwise, you apparently want this article to sit stinking up things forever because no one can ever be arsed to take care of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted to merge above, not for it to "sit stinking up things forever". Please focus on content, not on contributors, and please use correct wiki-terminology in AfD nominations. The redirect you performed is not a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to merge it, or just let it sit around forever? If there was a consensus to merge, why not do it your own damn self? Do you want it to sit around forever? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obligated to perform the merge per your order and I don't base my editing upon your instruction, and per your overall tone here and elsewhere, nor should anyone else. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Supply chain management § Certification, per consensus at the previous AfD discussion. The nom has provided no policy-based rationale for deletion and from the previous consensus, a merge is the obvious alternative to deletion. A WP:TROUT to the nom--it would have been better to start a merge discussion on the talk page, per the usual bold, revert, discuss cycle, than to start another AfD. Today, I rewrote the prose of the article to remove some of the jargon and to give the prose a more neutral tone, in preparation for a merge. Hopefully the article is now more accessible for non-experts. The AfD, however, prevents me from performing a merge until it is closed. --Mark viking (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge again regardless of if someone removed it as the merge is still applicable, we can lock the article if needed. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bacha Khan University attack. Strictly speaking, redirect isn't what most people were arguing for, but given that some material has already been merged, I think a redirect is keeping within the spirit of what most people were advocating, and it seems like the simplest way to preserve the edit history for attribution purposes. Of course, the old text is still available via the article history, so if somebody wants to mine that for additional material to merge (or transwiki), there's no reason they can't do that (provided, especially in the transwiki case, that attribution is maintained). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack[edit]

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

No need for this article as the information exist in Bacha Khan University attack. Musa^Talk ☻ 19:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 19:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 19:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Please speedily delete as it is poorly written and we do not need a separate article for reactions. Many articles for example 2015 Mina stampede and 2016 Ouagadougou attacks have reactions incorporated in them. Current article Bacha Khan University attack already has reactions in it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ TransWiki, this topic is covered at Bacha Khan University attack. Only with unencyclopedic quotes added. Wikipedia is not the place for a list of quotes, please use Wikiquote. Jolly Ω Janner 22:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per several precedents clearly established in similar articles that were put for deletion in recent times. The article could be improved to make it more prose and less direct quotes, but articles that should be improved should not be deleted. The nomination rationale seems invalid, as the main article does in fact not duplicate the information in this one, but just briefly summarizes it and links to this one for further information. LjL (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the material in its scope belong on an encyclopedia though? It is almost definitely going to be a list of quotes of foreign ambassadors and heads of states seemingly compiled at random. Jolly Ω Janner 01:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, several precedents (which concern this exact kind of quote collection) show that the consensus about your questions is "yes, it does", and I'm not going to challenge such clear consensus at this time. I don't necessarily see that it must be a list of quotes rather than prose highlighting differences in reactions by various states, and I don't understand the "at random" remark. LjL (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are not completely understanding what we are actually discussing. The page has duplicate information from Bacha Khan University attack. We are discussing that we do not need a separate page for reactions as reactions can be included and are included in that other page. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof of such a consensus? It has not been integrated into any of our policy articles. The randomness is because the article does (and/or never will) define a scope for inclusion (e.g. whose quote is notable enough to be listed). As such, the core of the article is original research and likely to cross into non-neutral POV. Jolly Ω Janner 18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: then why have you !voted "delete"? You should have voted "merge" if your intention was to merge the content of this article into the main article. There's a definite difference between deleting and merging. And anyway, reactions aren't currently included in the main article to anywhere near the extent that this article does, so, merging would be the thing to do, if anything.

@Jolly Janner: the core of this article is reactions by sovereign state governments, and that is pretty clear from all the flags and such that are typical of this kind of article (even though some people don't like it). There are about 200 sovereign states in the world, which makes the scope pretty well-defined and not indefinitely expandable.

Listing similar article discussions is helpful, but we should still do a case-by-case deletion discussion, as some events do not receive as much international ~~quotes~~ "reaction" as others. This attack received far less international discussion than the examples you provided. Jolly Ω Janner 00:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Jolly Janner, but that sounds like an argument for "merge" (not enough standalone content for a WP:SPINOUT) rather than for "delete". LjL (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LjL: I did not vote for merge because I don't know what would be the end result of that, the article we are asking to be deleted is poorly written compiled condolences which are never encyclopedic. I don't want that stuff to be merged with the other article. I fear that "One rotten apple will spoil the whole barrel." I voted "delete" because I know what would be the end result for that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess my thinking is that articles' fate should not be dictated by "voting" tactics. LjL (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think this article can merge with Bacha Khan University attack.--Shwangtianyuan STRONGLY CONDEMNS 2016 North Korean nuclear test 03:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Transwiki - Most seem to be condolences and some vague offers of support that can probably be condensed down significantly. Though I think it might be useful to include the relevant quotes from each as a footnote for those who are particularly interested in what specifically each said. E.g.: "Statements expressing condolences for the incident were made by representatives from the governments of Angola^{[quote 1]}, Brazil^{[quote 2]}....Offers for support in their fight against terror came from Croatia^{[quote 3]}, Denmark^{[quote 4]}...." Something like that? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences are not encyclopedic. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdventurousSquirrel: what's your opinion on moving the list of quotes to a Wikiquote article and having an link to such in a box on the right hand side of section on reactions? There are examples of such on Wikiquote at https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Category:Terrorism. Jolly Ω Janner 04:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, that definitely sounds like an option. Though it's kind of too bad that the wikiquote templates are kind of hidden away in the external links section (as we see in 7 July 2005 London bombings, for example). I think it would both be more accessible for interested readers, and also more effective at dissuading editors from inserting more and more quotes of arguably limited value in the main WP page if there were a more obvious link to the sister site that could serve as a more comprehensive repository for them. Maybe the other more integrated inline interwiki links in Wikiquote:Templates could be used instead? As a hatnote for the Reactions section, maybe? If that's agreeable for everyone, I suppose I'd change my !vote to Transwiki, technically. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking something like this. Jolly Ω Janner 07:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolly Janner and AdventurousSquirrel: Let's not forget that this is the deletion discussion for Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack. Wiki quoting Bacha Khan University attack#Reactions is off-topic here and should be discussed at Talk:Bacha Khan University attack. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolly Janner: Yeah, I'd be happy with that. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: I don't think it's off topic - I think it's equivalent to casting a Transwiki !vote here at this article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdventurousSquirrel: Nope, the discussion is on one page and you are casting a Transwiki vote on the other. Not a proper forum, it should be discussed on the other page's talk page. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: Not sure I understand what the argument is. To clarify, the point of this discussion is to decide what to do with the material currently contained in the article Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack. Options include: Keep, Delete, Merge, and Transwiki. I !vote to Transwiki it. I am not !voting to transwiki the material contained in the section Bacha Khan University attack#Reactions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this not sufficient for its own article. If there was a distinct, surprising response then it would be notable but there hasn't been anything out of the ordinary. Curro2 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete I also advocated deletion for many of the "international reactions" pages above, and have frankly struggled to understand the basis of the keep arguments put forward for them. In my view, a list of international reactions which are deeds or actions taken by those countries will generally have sound basis for an encyclopedic article which meets WP:GNG, because in most cases there will be ongoing coverage of those actions or deeds; but a list of international reactions which comprises no more than a list of quotes of diplomatic condolence (which is the case here) should not meet WP:GNG, because other than an initial news report of the quote, there is no significant ongoing coverage covering that reaction. Too often I think keep voters have mistakenly argued that the reactions to the event WP:INHERIT the notability of the event itself. Aspirex (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete diplomatic bromides and formulaic condolences offer no useful information and have no encyclopedic value. -Zanhe (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete/Merge~~ Merge/Redirect Since many delete comments suggested merging procedure and merging was also voted many times, I took it to myself to add material from this article to the already existing Reactions subsection at the attack page. I don't think adding these quotes to the main Relations section requires the "closure" of this AfD, because it's such a small amount of text. Anyways, the article can be safely deleted now. Oh and if you feel like some quote doesn't belong, then please remove it without undoing the whole shebang. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: the article can't be "safely deleted" once you've merged its content into another article, because as WP:Merge and delete explains, that would violate the license of Wikipedia content. That's why "merge" is a very distinct !vote from "delete". You can, however, "merge and redirect" (which preserves the history). LjL (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information. I were unfamiliar with that policy. I changed my vote to Merge/Redirect. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think histories can be merged by a sysop if needed. If left with a redirect, it would probably only be kept as a technicality, since "reactions to Bacha Khan University attack" is not a used term. Jolly Ω Janner 03:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Several notable reactions and good sourcing. I see no problem with keeping this article of reactions to a notable event.BabbaQ (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Decay[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. WP:CRYSTAL also applies. Nikki♥311 03:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signs of better satisfying the applicable notability guidelines, delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This pointless discussion comes up whenever a new stable or character debuts, sure we don't know for definite if they will even be there next month but it is extremely likely and right after debut is when the highest level of interest is going to be from people wanting to know about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.58.79 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable as a team right now, their individual articles can cover it. MPJ-US 11:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This stupid discussion always comes up whenever a new stable or tag team forms, if the team does last a while and we delete it, it just makes more work to put it back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in response to the IPs, WP:TOOSOON is real.LM2000 (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely WP:TOOSOON, at best. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nora: The Last Chronicle of Devildom. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 04:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kazunari Kakei[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No plausible reason advanced for deletion. Subject was creator of a notable manga series (that article's been around for eight years, and there's no controversy about its notability), and therefore appears to meet NARTIST#3. The only issue is whether this bio should be an independent article or merged into the manga article. That's not a matter for AFD. In light of the nominator's failure to do anything beyond claiming a "just not notable" rationale, this discussion should be summarily closed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Don't try to be smart and let the AfD run... Reliable Sources would be nice for a start. JMHamo (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - considering he died only 2 days ago there may be obituaries appearing soon, if he was of any note. But I'm sceptical that his manga book(s) meets notability requirements either. Unfortunately if he was living in Japan, we may need someone with a knowledge of Japanese to find suitable sources. I'm erring towards "Delete". Sionk (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the 93 volume manga sounds notable, I think he passes WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Reliable Sources to back this up are where? JMHamo (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing, no in-depth third-party coverage, and no evidence of sufficient notability to justify a self-standing article like this. Can always be recreated at a later date when/if reliable sources become available. --DAJF (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT Tried to salvage this but found nothing substantial with regard to the artist alone. However his NORA manga series is certainly notable, so a redirect to that would be a better option. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT per the above comment. A small section can be included about the author on the redirected page. 8bitW (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nora: Media Arts DB [15] shows only Nora as notable work by the author. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nora: The Last Chronicle of Devildom (Nora) per the above her name is a likely search term. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as no signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ambassadorz[edit]

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

Unreliable sources are all that is provided. discogs is not a reliable source. Google search does not produce any reliable links. Article was deleted before. Was PRODded today. OP removed the PROD, so to AfD we go. Alexf^(talk) 21:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. There are no reliable sources I can find. Google does not list any. The OP lists discogs.com, not a reliable source, and entries in Wikipedia itself, definitely not what we are looking for. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, previously speedy deleted page and probably trying to use Wikipedia page as an advertisement.Nicky mathew (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Actually, I am not trying to use this page as an advertisement. As you can see, I've added various new sources to show that if Love In This Club is a notable addition to Wikipedia, then the producers who helped craft the song should be also. If editors want us to be nice, can you please live by your own rules and please assume positive intent in return. Thank you. Mrenytfall (talk)16:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if the duo merits an article, but here are at least a couple of references that might get one or both to meet WP:COMPOSER as individuals:

2009 BMI Urban Awards: BMI Award-Winning Songs

R&B/Hip-Hop Songs - Rhythm & Soul Music Awards Home - Friday, June 26, 2009

--Drm310 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and draft & userfy for now until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) sst✈^(conjugate) 04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbids Big Bang[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion as a page created by User:Mr. Lama, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Giovannigiulio. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is there a policy reason to delete the article simply because it was created by a sock? The game appears to be more than notable with a cursory search for VG related reliable sources, including coverage of it's announcement and release by TouchArcade, Gamezebo, IGN, VG247, Polygon, GameSpot, GameInformer... I could go on. If the article is deleted as a result of this AFD, is there any reason I cannot immediately recreate with new sources? -- ferret (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more on the WP:DENY side. In my experience, one key way to stop persistent sock puppeteering and ban evasion is to systematically remove the created content. If not, the banned editor has no reason whatsoever to stop spawning sock accounts and adding yet more content, in defiance of community consensus. That said, Ferret, there would be no reason whatsoever why you couldn't immediately recreate with new sources (or any independent reliable source, as there are currently none) nor is there any reason why you couldn't improve the article now. I think that if you did, more editors might be inclined to !vote keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: After replying here, I found that the nom mass-nominated dozens of articles without any effort at WP:BEFORE. This article was created by the sock over a year ago. It's my view that the nom should withdraw, as he has on several of these after being challenged on WP:BEFORE. That aside, I'm about to add a Reception section to the article which will show a fair amount of coverage exists. -- ferret (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6 sources integrated directly into the article, 4 more for later on talk page, and numerous more available with a quick search. Looks better now. -- ferret (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm all for deleting articles just created by banned users, but this has been around for over 1.5 years, and been edited by many other editors. Its clearly a notable subject, based on the sourcing, and honestly doesn't even really look all that much like the banned user's version. There's no reason to delete this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as the current sourcing seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While it does have reliable sources, it's about a small mobile phone game. Couldn't this be merged into Raving Rabbids? --Soetermans. T / C 22:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When an article looks like this, I'm in favor of merging, but when there's sourcing/content present like in this article, I see no issue with it being a stand alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG with multipel reliable independent in-depth sources, namely WP:VG/RS. It doesn't look like there's any content issues and the article was copyedited/sourced post-SPI, so deletion doesn't seem necessary for that reason. If really pressed, we can just recreate the article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taco & Paco[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article has not been sourced since its creation. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the article was created while after they were initially blocked, this could go speedy. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this could've been G5 material but considering there have still been other users, even though none of them substantial contributions, AfD will at least have G4 benefits. There's nothing to suggest even minimally better yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG according to what's available on the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the consensus seems clear and I would've voted keep myself (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Rajshahi mosque bombing[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS Itspublic (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't really think that this article fails WP:NOTNEWS, as it is certainly not 'routine reporting' (point 2 of NOTNEWS), rather, it is a bombing attack which may or may not have been perpetuated by ISIS in Bangladesh. What's more, many other articles of its kind exist (like 2015 Kharkiv bombing). It has also been mentioned in several reliable sources (cited in the article) including Reuters and the New York Times. Dschslava (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This does not fail WP:NOTNEWS, the event of a suicide bombing in Ahmadi mosque in Bangladesh is notable and has been widely reported which establishes that notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant suicide bombing with internaitonal coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Valley University Police Department[edit]

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

Non-notable law enforcement agency. Certainly they are important, but I find no evidence of notability, nor is there any claim or support for notability in the article. | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:CORP, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Scant coverage outside the sphere of their university. Of no greater visibility outside the university than any other university's security department. Also, it reads like a communication to the school community by the department. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely better notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Jama[edit]

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

Non-notable presenter, one reliable source is not significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:CREATIVE, and the search engines turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medo Ismail[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. A single article about Ismail's social media campaign does not make him a notable artist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:CREATIVE, and searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brave man[edit]

Also delete:

The Brave Man (disambiguation) (redirect)
Brave man (disambiguation) (redirect)

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

There is nothing on this page called Brave man (only translated names) making the dab quite unnecessary. Legacypac (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Eh, I suppose. Keep actually as they are still basically applicable. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - as per WP:DPAGE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Continental Groups[edit]

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

Irrelevant and fancruft. Contentfork with the year articles. The Banner talk 23:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these titles are not awarded during the telecast of the pageant.Richie Campbell (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Buckley[edit]

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

Non-notable clergyman with scant coverage due to his sexuality and wedding. Blatantly fails WP:GNG. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Episcopal ordination (even though not papally authorised) might just make him notable, but I am unsure. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. There are also blp concerns regarding the tone of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambre Frisque[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that she meets WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG, or confirm claims in article. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for WP:CREATIVE with no better signs of an article. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:CREATIVE and searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) sst✈^(conjugate) 04:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Prat[edit]

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

This is a page of stats. I've searched various terms (ensuring I'm actually looking for the right Prat) and all I can find are other pages that give his stats. Yes, he was inducted into the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame, but if no one takes notice other than the people giving the award, it seems like a moot point. Happy to be proven wrong, but even with the HoF induction he doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep:*I added reliable sources and added his induction to the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame in 2011. He was also mentioned in a story about a prominent reunion event for lacrosse "legends." The hall of fame is enough for him to pass WP:ATHLETE. Delta13C (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at best perhaps because of the Hall of Fame, seems enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JJ McKay[edit]

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

Non-notable biographical article. Subject has appeared in some local newspaper articles, though nothing that I've found meets WP:GNG. FallingGravity (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article shows no better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage does not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse Pompeii[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion as a page created by User:Mr. Lama, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Giovannigiulio. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Created by a sock, but edited by multiple editors since then; sourced fine enough and hardly a deletion candidate. Nate • (chatter) 08:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) sst✈^(conjugate) 04:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Marco & Gina[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article has not been sourced since its creation. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had to do a HighBeam search in order to find anything useful, but it turned up this article [16] originally from VideoAge International. From there, I decided to do a Google search, pairing the name of the series with "Rai Trade", and I came up with these [17] [18] - the first is from a publication called The Business of Film, which I'm not personally familiar with, but it clearly seems to be an RS. The second is from Variety. I also found this [19], which appears to be from a blog of some sort, although Google translate leads me to believe that the owner of the blog actually worked on the series - so it may be an admissible primary source, per WP:USERGENERATED. I have to head out somewhere, so I haven't gone through all of the search results. These are just the first three that jumped out at me. If someone wants to spend even just a few more minutes on this, they'd probably find even more refs. But I feel like the linked to articles are enough on their own to display notability. --Jpcase (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources have been found I think WP:GNG has been passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems enough and I would've even closed as such. (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators of Rome (2012 film)[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion as a page created by User:Mr. Lama, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Giovannigiulio. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Created by a sock but edited since then from other editors with actual sourcing. Unless we want to WP:TNT this only to restore the text this doesn't seem to be a viable deletion candidate. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 05:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 05:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 05:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and warn the nominator as they are mass-nominating/prodding all the articles of Mr. Lama, regardless of when they were created, regardless of who else edited them, regardless of their notability and even regardless of their actual sourcing. If Mr. Lama/Giovannigiulio was ever disruptive, nomitator is being disruptive as well, possibly more. In a case like this, G5 is clearly not eligible, notability is obvious, there is no improvement for the encyclopedia from the deletion of the article, and AfD like these are just a big waste of time for the community, who has better things to do. Cavarrone 05:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I think we're going to have to do a history merge with Not Born to Be Gladiators. An IP appears to have performed a cut and paste move in July. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History merge has been carried out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) sst✈^(conjugate) 04:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur from the Deep[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article has not been sourced since its creation. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 06:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 06:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 06:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Created by a sock, but edited by multiple editors since then; sourced fine enough and hardly a deletion candidate. Nate • (chatter) 08:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced fine enough? This article is unsourced! Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what?? You really should go read WP:NEXIST. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep per due diligence showing the film topic itself as notable even if the article is unsourced. Issues with an article created months before a block, are correctable through regular editing... and not a cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

searches per WP:BEFORE:

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

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

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

Keep and I would've closed as such, keep if can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DiDia 150. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Di Dia[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BIO1E of a person notable only as the designer of a single car — and I don't even mean a single model of car, I mean only one single solitary car was ever made at all. It might be appropriate to include a bit of information about him in DiDia 150, but neither the notability nor the sourceability are sufficient to support a standalone biography of him as a separate topic from the car. Delete, or redirect to DiDia 150. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DiDia 150 (with the history preserved under the redirect) because most of the sources are about the single solitary car he designed. There is only one source specifically about him:
1. Ernst, Kurt (2014-03-12). "Andrew DiDia, designer of DiDia 150, dies at age 96". Hemmings Motor News. Archived from the original on 2016-01-31. Retrieved 2016-01-31.
I recommend preserving the article's history, so the article creator, Tinkertron (talk · contribs), can merge any useful information to DiDia 150 using a source like Hemmings Motor News.
No prejudice against undoing the redirect if more sources surface that are specifically about Andrew Di Dia.
I have notified the article creator of the deletion nomination since he was not notified.
Cunard (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The page's creator was only just notified J04n(talk page) 00:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if needed if this is questionably notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per SwisterTwister and Cunard (at least I think that's who the other editor suggesting redirect was). Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] "Miss Diva 2015: Top 16 Contestants Unveiled". International Business Times, India Edition.

[2] "Miss Diva 2015: Contestants sizzle in swimsuit round". International Business Times, India Edition.

[3] "Miss Diva 2015 finalists showcase their communication skills". The Times of India.

[4] "Miss Diva Universe crowned at a Grand Finale". The Times of India.

[5] "Watch Miss Diva 2015 finalists sizzle in swimwear on TV tonight". The Times of India.

[6] "Actress Urvashi Rautela crowned Miss Diva 2015". The Indian Express.

[7] "The audition rounds of Yamaha Fascino Miss Diva 2015 held at Radisson Blu, at Ahmedabad". The Times of India.

[8] "Yamaha Fascino Miss Diva 2015 selects 14 finalists". Gulf News.

[9] ""Lara Dutta says girls appear more prepared these days". The Indian Express.

[10] "UCD students union makes €1.1m sales in first year". Independent.ie.

[11] "UCD students' union marks 40th anniversary". The Irish Times. 20 March 2015.

[12] Gavan Reilly. "UCD students vote to leave national students' union". TheJournal.ie.

[13] International Charitable Foundations.

[14] Private Funds, Public Purpose: Philanthropic Foundations in International Perspective

[15] Charities and charitable foundations.

[16] Proceedings of ... Biennial Conference on Charitable Foundations.

[17] Foundations for Social Change.

[18] "Philanthropy expert Ken Prewitt to discuss 'Do charitable foundations make a difference?'".

[19] "Why are Hong Kong's philanthropists so blinkered?". South China Morning Post. 30 January 2016.

[20] "Billion dollar benefactors: Minnesota's charitable foundations". Star Tribune.

[21] The Long March of Social Innovation - How Charitable Foundations can Contribute Towards Social Change in the Fields of Educatonal and Social Policy.

[22] Capital values and growth of charitable foundations

[23] An Act for Enabling Trustees of Charitable Foundations to Rpomote the Purposes and Extend the Benifit of the Fame. Published in 1790.

[24] The charitable foundations of Byzantium. Published in 1926.

[25] "Visual artist gets financially creative". thestar.com.

[26] "Canadian artist bounces into Park". Sherwood Park News.

[27] "Running 2from Home".

[28] "Artists score points at North American Indigenous Games".

[29] "Artists urged to share culture". The New Zealand Herald.

[30] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism#Inconsequential_Views_Before_AD_300

[31] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

[32] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

v t e Students' unions in Ireland
Universities (Republic of Ireland)	Cork Dublin City University Trinity College University College Galway Limerick Maynooth
Universities (Northern Ireland)	Belfast Ulster
National unions	NUS-USI Union of Students in Ireland Irish Second–Level Students' Union