Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 February	12 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 speedy close. Individual who declined PROD has reversed his decline, rendering this AfD moot. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ಮುನೀರ್ ಕಾಟಿಪಳ್ಳ[edit]

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

Has been listed at WP:PNT for two weeks without translation Prod removed without fixing the issue Jac16888 ^Talk 23:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as I had no idea of this policy, and will now return the PROD template. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:30, 12 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. joe decker ^talk 05:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patnubay B. Tiamson[edit]

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

I was actually going to PROD this but noticed it had been PRODed twice, once by JamesBWatson here and also BLPPROD by Winner 42 here; As such, my searches found nothing at all to suggest there's an applicably notable article here and none of the current sources suggest any better. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see some light coverage in the media, but it's nothing that would lead me to believe he satisfies WP:BIO. Examples: [1] from The Daily Tribune, [2] and [3] from GMA Network. Mostly just brief quotations. I'm not convinced that the award is significant enough to give notability. As this looks like an autobiography, I'm inclined to delete. However, if someone can show better coverage, maybe we can rewrite it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It isn't often I get pings for BLPPROD nominations from 2011, but I'm afraid the subject hasn't acquired significant coverage since then. I have to concur with NinjaRobotPirate that the available sourcing here is very weak. I'll suspect that some coverage does likely exist in Filipino sources, but I have been unable to uncover anything that could be construed as significant coverage. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 17 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. joe decker ^talk 05:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Wallace Diesel[edit]

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

An aerospace engineer who had some patents... no indication of notability and sources are not adequate to satisfy GNG: the only one that covers subject directly is an obituary in a newsletter. Also fails WP:ACADEMIC. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found for WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Utterly fails WP:GNG. That obituary has nothing of significance to say. To rub the point in, not one page in Wikipedia's main article space links to it [4]. Any editor who claims otherwise it spouting fanboy rubbish. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a reason to change my mind since the first AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:00, 17 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; WP:BASIC and WP:GNG's requirements are found to be met. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Waldrep[edit]

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

Lacks notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Appears to have some local notability, but not national or global. Two of his three books are from Baxter Press (self publisher per their website). The article was created by a clearly conflicted editor and expanded by yet another before I and others cleared it of content that violated content policies While Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion that was only the roots; E.M.Gregory has done a nice job of digging up sources and completely revising to build a decent article, showing that Waldrep definitely has regional notability and is touching on national. So I withdraw my delete !vote. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC) (modified in light of E.M.Gregory's work Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd been trying to clean up the article, but there just isn't very much non-PR info available about the article subject. Attempts by SPAs to add notable achievements have not improved notability; the "medal of honor" can't be verified from a reliable source, and a 3rd class FCC license is something every DJ once had to get. Other than that, the article is mostly an ad for books and other related products, and the subject fails WP:AUTHOR. John Nagle (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC. Almost no coverage in any reliable sources, just promotions on various sites for upcoming revivals. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Has not been nominated or won a well-known and significant award or honor; has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quick news search [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my early searches didn't bring up much, but something about the article made me run him through a news archive search, lots of hits a decade ago, some coverage more recently: has had/has national radio show, hosts conferences that draw thousands, White Houses phoned to ask that President Bush came to speak at one of his conferences - both President and Mrs. came to a conference, at least some of his books have been reviewed. Doing a modest expand now. Mostly sourcing to McClatchy articles picked up by dailies. There's a lot more I did not ad. Remember that many medium-size city dailies do not shop up in news searches, so you can get good coverage in good-siced regional dailies, and not show up well in online searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks E.M.Gregory. Two things. I am sympathetic to editors who want to save articles, but:

a) This article has been under promotional pressure, so please be careful not to add promotional content that is not supported by sources, as you did here. There is a just passing mention of the conferences there, and it does not say anything about them being attended by "thousands of people"; (I know you are generally a carefully editor and that was just a slip...); and

Sorry, my bad. I did see counts of 8,000 and 9,5000 attendees in one of the articles that came up on proquest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

b) I noted above that he does seem to have some local notability. There has been some debate in AFDs for a while now about whether local notability is sufficient to keep an article, and in my view it is generally not. This article was created and expanded by employees of his ministry seeking to raise their profile. That is not what Wikipedia is for and I don't think the subject meets the spirit of our notability policy. I hope that makes sense to you, even if you do not agree. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog. Point taken. I looked at the article history. Wikipedia is certainly vulnerable to this sort of , and there is no question promotional use. On this other hand, Waldrep cannot be dismissed as a merely local figure. Here's the schedule for the "women of Joy" conferences scheduled fo rthe next few months, from Carolina to Texas. this is not merely local. Nor can we dismiss newspapers like Sun-Sentinel or edited articles written by McClatchy journalists. McClatchy is a national outlet. As I see it, if not for the staffers in his Ministry who keep using Wikipedia like a personal promotion site, there would be no quesiton of Waldrep's notability. I'm still thinking keep. Is there a fix for the editing by his staff?.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

addendum: book review I cited appears to have been originally published in the The Dallas Morning News and ot have reached the SunSentinel and several other papers via McClatchy, syndicattion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing for a bio can also be found in articles in The Alabama Baptist here:[6] including this one [7].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've open dialogs with both of the editors (one declared a connection, the other has not yet, so I should have been more careful about saying "two employees" -- but it seems very likely that the second one is an employee as well). One of them responded - the other not yet. I am always hopeful that conflicted editors can learn and understand how to be productive members of the community (namely, by following the COI guideline). And yes we decide, based on our own policies, what stays and goes! I am not sure where "regional" fits with the "local" vs "national" debate that has been happening in WP... Please feel free to keep expanding though, if you like. I am open to changing my vote if NOTABILITY emerges. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Started by expanding article with details of his personal life, sourced to The Birmingham News - largest newspaper in the state. I have not sourced it to articles like this [[8] that give a sense of the scale of his ministry, reporting on a conference attended by 6,000 people form 15 states. Many stories exist, about the ministry rather than the man./ This is a bio, but it will probably make sense to add a section about the ministry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I especially love the many stories that come up with headlines like: Conference brings 9,000 people, road closure to Pigeon Forge [9] Waldrep Ministreis regularly draw, 5-10,000 attendees. A great many stories are published about the conferences. when he holds one in a good-size town the news stories are about who spoke: George BushJr., Sarah Palin, Tim Tebow, but when he draws 9,000 Christians to Pigeon Forge..., well, I think it's funny that searches on his name turn up so many stories with headlines like this. I'll try to make time to continue to expand. ~~His church in Decatur was covered when it built a $6.7 expansion, the Sunday school draws 1,100 students on a Sunday [10].~~ Hard to separate the minister form the ministry, when it comes to an evangelist preacher like Waldrep. I other editors will now take a look at notability here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nice work. i have withdrawn my delete !vote. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checking references mentioned above. The Pigeon Forge article [11] is behind a paywall, and the Google search link doesn't work. That's a mention of a road near the event being used for parking. There's more on that event from the convention center.[12]. Waldrep is on the program, but he's not the main speaker; David Jeremiah is. There's what looks like press coverage here [13], but note that it's marked "submitted", which means it's a press release. The Decatur Baptist Church article doesn't say it's Waldrep's church.[14]. That article says it's the church of "Pastor Doug Ripley". Waldrep is mentioned in passing only. None of those references meet the depth of coverage requirement in WP:BASIC. Waldrep seems to be a promoter and event planner; he puts big events together, with big names on the bill. He isn't the main act. John Nagle (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My error on Decatur Baptist, he is (or, perhaps, used to be) pastor of Central Baptist in Decatur.[15], Here's a wonderful old article [16] from back when he was rector of Central Baptist, he seems to have Art Linkletter keynote a conference, and also Barbara Bush. but his is notable as an evangelist: radio show, books, conferences, preaching, more than as a pastor of a particular church.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nagle, This and the other conferences are, as the sources you cite say, was put together by Phil Waldrep ministries. He gets Christians like Tim Tebow and other evangelists as featured speakers, and is similarly invited to speak at evangelical events sponsored by other organizations. He is not a mere promoter. He is the head of a large, evangelical ministry that draws huge audiences to multiple events every year in many states.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 14 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. joe decker ^talk 05:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Diesel[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is some sort of legal problem for which a fine was paid and the subject served jail time. No other notable info about the subject, which makes this an obvious BLP1E deletion. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a clear-cut (no pun intended) case of BLP1E. Even without BLP1E, the subject is only of hyperlocal interest. Toddst1 (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as not notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:26, 18 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. joe decker ^talk 05:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadreza Ghavidel[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to Malavan F.C. However, since he has yet to actually play a match for them, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My fault for dePRODding after checking that he is on Malavan's squad, but not whether he has actually appeared. Perhaps move to draft anticipating that he might qualify soon. JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may soon meet criteria but there is no guarantee, fails the criteria at the moment Spiderone 11:37, 18 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 00:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Civilian (TV series)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a television series claimed as "in development", but which is proving entirely unverifiable on a Google search — even the purported creator's own IMDb profile fails to list it. To be fair, even with the unverifiability problem I doubt that this is an outright WP:HOAX; the creator's edit history strongly implies some kind of direct personal or business relationship with Stilley, so this is most likely a premature announcement about a real project that she really is shopping around and just hasn't found a buyer for yet. But even if that's true, it's WP:TOOSOON for an article about it if we can't properly source anything about it yet. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can actually be sourced as a real thing that's really happening. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially per nominator. I cannot seem to find any coverage in reliable secondary sources; as and when such coverage can be found, an article can be written. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Two months since the article exists and still no references (available). WP:TOOSOON at best. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as way TOOSOON, Had there been any sources available I would've gone with Keep but there's literally nothing ... Can easily be recreated once more stuff pops up (If it ever does!). –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 18 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 // 16:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Benko[edit]

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

Article was prodded with the rationale "Article concerns a young footballer who fails the sport-specific notability guideline because he hasn't played in a fully professional league (the German Regionalliga isn't fully pro) or at senior international level, and about whom there's no evidence of enough significant coverage to pass the general notability guideline". Prod was removed with edit summary "Two specific articles on the subject meet WP:GNG". Personally, I can't find anything in reliable independent sources other than rehashed stories hung on quotes from his first-team manager Pep Guardiola saying he did well on the pre-season tour to China and he's going to be good but he's nowhere near ready for first-team matches. Perhaps I just don't know where to look. Struway2 (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the two stories, [17][18], about the subject in separate reliable sources that are independent of the subject, WP:GNG has been met. That the subject has not played in a fully professional league is immaterial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a good example of the story I mentioned in my nomination statement, and is well down at the routine trivial end of coverage: more than a namecheck, but not very far. The second is a piece by a student on a website that invites people to send in articles, so wouldn't count as reliable. I don't see those as meeting GNG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly disagree, but would be happy to take them to WP:RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in either article that is so controversial that reliability need be called into question. What I do see however, is two articles building brief comments around the same quote from Guardiola. Aside from the inherent brevity of each article making it reasonable to call into question the notion of significant coverage (not to mention the logical fallacy that 2 articles = GNG), this is in fact not separate coverage, but essentially the same article, since the substance of each is the same quote from Guardiola used verbatim in each instance. A manager commenting briefly on how amazing one of the young players at his club might be at some point in the future is not significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our job to judge the article. It's the nomintor's job to run WP:BEFORE and editors to investigate if the subject is or is not notable.

It took me a short time to use Google and come up with these: [19][20] [21] [22] [23] [24] and they have been added to the article as inline references. Shall I keep looking? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing further. he is apparently on the senior men team's roster for their champion's league matches. If he appears a a substitute during the round of 16 matches, is he notable? WP:NFOOTBALL is rubbish so I won't bother reading it. I'll take your word for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly encourage you to continue searching if you are convinced of GNG. At worst, I would encourage you to re-read the sources you have presented. In your attempt to show coverage in multiple sources, what you have in fact shown is further rehashes of the same brief quotes from Guardiola:

ran.de - uses essentially the same quote from Guardiola, this time in German, saying We are very pleased with his performances and his attitude in training... He is a very young player of 17 years, he can improve much we have to go step by step, he trained with the first team, which is for him alone... a big step forward. but we are convinced of its class. (German: Wir sind sehr zufrieden mit seinen Auftritten und seiner Einstellung im Training... Er ist ein sehr junger Spieler. Mit 17 Jahren kann er noch vieles verbessern. Wir müssen Schritt für Schritt gehen. Er trainiert mit der ersten Mannschaft, das allein ist für ihn ein großer Schritt nach vorne. Wir sind aber von seiner Klasse überzeugt.) The wording is very slightly different from the first two sources you presented but nowhere near sufficiently so to assume this is a different quote. Either way, it says nothing new about the player.
sport1.de - this is simply a brief quote from Guardiola, there isn't even any analysis of it. As a quote from his manager, it is inherently WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and not useful for establishing GNG. It does not enhance notability because it says nothing more than the previous source and is so similar in content as to be essentially identical (German: Fabian Benko ist ein sehr junger Spieler. Er ist erst 17 Jahre alt. Wir sind aber von seiner Klasse überzeugt... Wir müssen Schritt für Schritt gehen. Er trainiert mit der ersten Mannschaft, das alleine ist für ihn ein großer Schritt nach vorne.)
eurosport.de - This is not actually about the player in question but an article on the wider Bayern youth setup. Benko is mentioned briefly with the article noting a couple of friendly appearances. This is not significant coverage, despite the fact that his name is mentioned in the headline.
internationalsoccerteams.com - This is just a very brief piece which is entirely speculation on what nation he might choose to represent. I don't see how content from this could provide more than a sentence in an article. Not significant coverage.
backofthenetfootball.com - This is not a separate source from the one you presented earlier, just posted to a different site. It is word for word identical and does not therefore support GNG.
bavarianfootballworks.com - This is nothing, there is essentially no content in this very brief article beyond the rhetrical question "is this guy going to be any good?" I'm not sure how this supports GNG.

I hope I have illustrated why simply googling someone's name is not the best way of establishing notability. Yes this is a player who is creating a reasonable amount of speculation, yes in pre-season Guardiola made some brief comments regarding his hopes for the player and yes he might come good soon, but at the moment I see no significant coverage, no interviews with the player and no significant articles summarising his career to date, which is unsurprising, because he hasn't actually done anything of note yet. You are right though, if he plays in the CL then he will be deemed notable. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, per WP:BOMBARD, I have also trimmed the article to remove the superfluous referencing. Why on earth would a second half substitute appearance in a pre-season friendly possibly warrant three separate references?!? Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple added comments of my own: first, Walter, would you mind providing some links to genuine reliable sources rather than these fansites and blogsites? International football is highly notable, and if the subject meets any notability standard surely he'd be featured in the genuine press? Secondly, "WP:NFOOTBALL is rubbish so I won't bother reading it" ... what the hell? It is not your -- nor mine, nor Fenix's, nor anyone's -- place to decide unilaterally that we're going to ignore any notability guidelines we don't like. NFOOTY is the subordinate sports guideline which applies to the subject, and if you don't like NFOOTY's wording, the place to dispute that is on the NSPORTS talk page. It's not something to litigate at AfD. Ravenswing 14:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored them. You're simply removing sources. You're also angry that I called you out for not bothering to search for sources before electing to state the subject is not notable. In short, I'm sorry I pissed you off, but the subject has multiple reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ravenswing. They are genuine reliable sources. Yes it's rubbish. This is an AfD, but I have complained about it on the project page and other locations so I won't extend my complaints here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, you didn't irritate me. Would be useful if you could show RS providing significant coverage that does not regurgitate the same brief press conference quote from Guardiola though to support your "it meets GNG" claim, which I believe I have quite comprehensively proven to be incorrect above. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the only valid claim for notability hinges on those two sources, it's not good enough. Only half of that first short source mentions the subject at all, and that's exactly the kind of routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. That leaves just the blogpost, which even if the blog qualified as a reliable source -- and I'd be interested in seeing proof of that -- is just one source, where the GNG requires multiple sources. Since the subject obviously falls well short of sports-specific guidelines, there's no choice but to delete. Ravenswing 02:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my gosh, it's not difficult to find a lot of media coverage about this player; and as noted above, some of it is (borderline) notable. Nfitz (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think media coverage is in question as you can see from the discussion above, just the significance of it. Can you provide links to sources that do more than recycle the same brief comment from a Guardiola press conference, because I can't and that is all we seem to have here. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I *do* think media coverage is in question. We're seeing a flurry of blogs and fansites (recycling, as Fenix says, the same press conference). What we're not seeing is coverage by the mainstream media. Ravenswing 11:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of blogs and fansites all of which are reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...but which don't satisfy GNG because all they do is recycle the same brief quote from Guardiola. Can you actually point to a significant article on this player that does not rely on the Guardiola quote? Fenix down (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which do satisfy GNG because they offer significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you think one quote recycled by some blogs and minor websites = GNG or an article briefly noting how he came on once for twenty minutes in a pre-season friendly = significant coverage then I guess no one is going to persuade you otherwise. Fenix down (talk)

You do keep saying that, Walter, and here's my answer: prove it. I challenge that those sources have a known reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Demonstrate that they are, indeed, regarded by reliable sources as having that. Blogs and fansites are generally not automatically presumed to be reliable, and want rather more than a bald assertion that they are. Ravenswing 22:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you don't like me putting forth these RSes. I thought it was up to those who don't think they're RSes to take them to RSN. I've already taken one and it has been supported. I will not do your work for you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, Walter, but I can read an edit history as well as the next man. You've visited RSN only four times in the last calendar year [25], none since the start of this AfD, none with reference to sports [26][27][28][29]. Suggesting that RSN has already signed off on one of your sources is dishonest and constitutes poor faith. Ravenswing 03:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I as a person have raised two sources there but not while signed in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, an anon IP did ask. A single editor responded [30], with comments such as the writer of one of your sources isn't listed on the site's staff page, "As for the editorial oversight, Wittmann's bio says that he's written for other publications, so he might fit our expert criteria, but it's not clear whether he's a professional journalist or a hobbyist. Bundesliga Fanatic doesn't appear to be cited in other publications (the way, say The Washington Post is)," and concludes by saying that he'd like to see more investigation, but that one source "might" be good as is if the claim it supports is -- in his words -- "very lightweight," such as Benko's age or the countries he visited.

Being a reliable source which satisfies the GNG is very far from being "very lightweight," and we all know that an essential element in being considered a reliable source is a proven reputation for fact checking and accuracy. That being said, claiming that Darkfrog24's response endorses either of your sources shoots your credibility on this issue in the head. Ravenswing 08:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RS point here is a bit of a red herring, given that the sources which are being claimed to support GNG essentially recycle the same quote from a Guardiola press conference, I don't have any problem accepting that he did say what he said, my issue here is that is essentially all he has said and it therefore doesn't matter how many times it is regurgitated, it doesn't equal GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my view, this fails WP:GNG fairly easily. I am particularly persuaded by the responses of Fenix and Ravenswing to Görlitz's claims to the contrary. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 21:11, 11 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 // 22:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I don't think the article is notable yet, but the amount of coverage makes it seem that subject will be notable in the near future, although that really isn't a valid reason to keep it now. Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no in-depth coverage seen from third party reliable sources; therefore fails WP:GNG Spiderone 11:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I can't anything in reliable third-party media, except when his name comes up in listings of Bayern Munich youth talents. He'll probably be notable soon enough, but the article can be created then. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:37, 18 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. Consensus is that the widespread and ongoing coverage make this more than just a news story. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing[edit]

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

~~WP:NOTNEWS, WP:MEMORIAL~~ notable per WP:CRIME, WP:NCRIME. Execution of an unusual crime that triggered a wide social reaction and possibly some policy changes. Worth documenting as a historic event. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note nominator has now entered a Keep vote below. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spirit Ethanol you might want to read the policies that you are citing, since they do not apply to this article, and also at WP:BEFORE, because if you had run a simple search or two on this incident you would have been able to judge it's notability more accurately.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually since this article is about a criminal act as opposed to a criminal, I would suggest that the applicable notability guideline is WP:NCRIME not WP:CRIME. But I guess it's the thought that counts. ;) Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominee. --Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by !voting.. irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The is patently NOT a WP:MEMORIAL. WP:NOTNEWS is a guideline that does not apply to this article, It states "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information." This article passes WP:GNG because of the worldwide scope and depth of coverage and because of the impact of the event on the current dominating topic in Swedish politics. That said, it needs expansion. It is more productive to help expand articles on obviousl notable events than to delete them. Here is a little [31] of the material that can and should be added to this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@E.M.Gregory: E.M., I just wanted to point out that whether or not those guidelines apply, WP:NCRIME definitely does, which is why I changed my !vote to "keep." Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ultimately, this is a local crime story with no serious encyclopedic value. The nominator was correct in bringing it to this forum. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Local? it has been reported extensively by international media. No serious encyclopedic value? Personal opinions weights lightly over guidelines. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. NOTNEWS applies to this tragic event. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC) changing to keep see below. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am expanding/improving this article. However, even when it was written it could not be accurately described as a "local crime story". "Local crime stories" in Sweden do not get intensive coverage in the British, American, French and other foreign media. Nor do Prime Ministers rush to the scene of a "local crime" with "No serious encyclopedia value" in the hope of difusing popular response, which, in this case, had included a nationwide series of premeditated attacks in which groups of men beat up black and brown-skkined people in thestreet and attack asylum centers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple, NOTNEWS does not apply. I have explained that below several times.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY. Editors who weighed in above need to at least look at expanded article (nothing fancy, just a quick expansion) an enormous amount of sourcing is available (most intensely from Britain papers for those searching in English,) more is available in other European languages and, of course, in Swedish. this: [32] gives a sense of the early coverage. The stabber (there is no doubt of his identity) is now a poster child for what the Swedish and international press report as presumably thousands of adult, male asylum seekers who lied to authorities by claiming to be underage so that they could take advantage of generous benefits and fast-track paths to legal status available to minors arriving without adult guardians, and also a poster child in the debate over whether asylum seekers who create crimes should be deported or allowed to serve their penalties and stay in Sweden. Except, he's not a child. He's a fully mature six-footer with a beard who all the reporters who have seen him guess to be 20 or so. The incident is reported to have sparked a round of deliberate attacks on asylum seekers and asylum centers by nativists. Coverage will obviously continue as this case moves towards trial and sentencing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Stick a knife in this one, it's done. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS does not apply. This is a article with great sourcing of national and international media. BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article goes far beyond whet is meant by not news because both Swedish and foreign papers have continued to run stories about it, and to cover details as they come out, and because it is discussed as a driver of political reactions to immigration I Sweden.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Agree with User:Lugnuts. User:BabbaQ has a point, but on balance I would agree with Lugnuts.AppliedStatistics (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS as stated by others, and also per WP:COATRACK. I reject E.M.Gregory's argument that the relationship between this incident and the 2015 refugee crisis is sufficient basis for this article to meet WP:GNG – if we were to do this, we would have hundreds of pages relating to individual crimes, each presenting its own take on the refugee crisis, and that is exactly what the COATRACK policy is designed to avoid. Once this article is stripped back to the bare facts about the incident itself, it falls into the NOTNEWS category. Aspirex (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a coatrack.WP:WINAC Note that every source that I added to the article is, in whole or part, an article about this specific stabbing murder. Each of the response assertions is there because sources discussing the incident assert that it was the or a contributory factor to specific consequence, such as the articles asserting that this attack was immediately followed by a sharp uptick in attacks on immigrants (or people who look like migrants) And while the article is about this crime, many, many articles about this crime point out that the perpetrator appears far older than his stated age, it is reasonable ot include that, look at WP:WINAC: "It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require." which is why I include a little information about the incentives migrnats have to lie about their age. Also note WP:WINAC: "Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS does not apply to a article that has great sourcing from media all over the world. Its not a local story or little importance or no press coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is extremely well sourced and notable. I think the delete votes should re-look at the article and see the new additions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spirit Ethanol Thank you for helping clean up the article. I wonder if you would consider withdrawing this AFD, given the amount of attention that the crime continues to generate in around the world and in Sweden where this incident has become a highly charged signifier at a time of burgeoning political tensions about the enormous wave of illegal immigrants. see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Paros (Greece) rape.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: per WP:WDAFD nomination can only be withdrawn with no other delete votes. Best path to retaining article is via more keep votes. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOTNEWS, wikinews is thataway nableezy - 17:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS is irrelevant here as the article has great sourcing and is about an event that has been reported on by plenty of international press.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt address NOTNEWS at all. Which, like it or not, is certainly relevant. nableezy - 07:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't meet WP:NEWSEVENT. As tragic as it is, there's no evidence that there's any lasting effects or significant coverage beyond the usual sensationalist coverage of a spectacular murder. NEWSEVENT is pretty clear that media's criteria for publishing is different from Wikipedia's notability criteria which means that an event can receive a lot of media coverage without being notable. Sjö (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know anything about lasting effects? It has been a week or so since it happened. that is purely speculations.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, there's no evidence of lasting effects. E.g. no quick policy changes or resignations, as can happen as a result of other events. I might ask, how do you know there will be lasting effects? Sjö (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article covers one of the most reported on and talked about murders in Swedish history for a loooong time. It covers WP:NEWSEVENT and WP:GNG. And no, the users claiming this is a "local story" means "this is a non British or American" story, simply because is a story from Swedens doesnt make it a local story. This event has been reported by international press as well as evident by the articles great sourcing. This article should be kept as it is notable and follows the WP:GNG guidelines an is filled with great sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS is a stupid guideline used to justify deletion for simply any article that deletionists wants to be deleted. Wikipedia IS NEWS and is based on news. BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT isnt a guideline, its Wikipedia policy. Disliking that doesnt change it, and your dislike of that policy does not in any way invalidate the view of those who do accept that policy. nableezy - 07:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The murder along with wide reaction and revenge act(s) by mobs warrant a page, see 2012 Paros (Greece) rape for a precedent page. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth? The nominator has added a keep !vote? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could be because the article was modified, sources added it is now still in the news, so notnews certainly doesn't apply. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spirit Ethanol: Agree, per WP:NCRIME. If you feel differently about the nom but cannot withdraw it, I would suggest striking out your original nomination, as you are permitted to do. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS - every single tragedy and stabbing cannot have its own Wikipedia article. AusLondonder (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're going to create an article like this, at least spell it "centre" AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British spelling because coverage of this Swedish crime has been so massive in Britain? Interesting point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"center"/"centre" is spelt "centrum" in Swedish AusLondonder (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKEIT does not apply. Does every single tragedy have an article? I did not know that. No, seriously, only notable "tragedies" and stabbings are notable and should have articles such as this one. NOTNEWS does not apply as this event has received attention for plenty of international media and has created a debate over these centers. BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING apply. Most of the article is about a crime and the immediate responses. If indeed it leads to policy changes etc. it can be recreated. Insofar as it is related to the immigration debate, it should be present in that article, summarized and in context. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Margolis [33] on The World (radio program) on talking about how this case has sparked patrolling by vigilantes in Stockholm. Impact is verified.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this article the source he uses doesn't make such a clear connection. Also, I removed a sentence in the article that erroneously said that the police had made a connection between the murder and the attacks. The stated purpose of the gangs according to reliable sources was to clean up among criminal street children. Sjö (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

changing to Keep. Reconsidering, based on WP:NCRIME, which is what we should be looking at. The scope of the media coverage is such as to warrant an article. Nominator's reconsideration was persuasive. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory. --Article editor (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename) Notability of this event seems to be clearly established with widespread domestic and international news coverage, as well as significant societal and policy implications in Sweden. I don't like the title of the article however, suggest renaming to something like "Murder of Alexandra Mezher". User2534 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some examples of the significant societal and policy implications? I live in Sweden and I can't think of any policy implications, and the significant societal implications are limited to increased fear, as far as I know. Sjö (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that most of those who want to delete claims WP:NOTNEWS is relevant. while its not, as this article subject has been in world media as evident by the great sourcing, and has ignited the debate over immigration not only in Sweden. BabbaQ (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"NOTNEWS" was my first reaction. However, a few article improvements demonstrated the subject is clearly not covered by that policy, so I changed from delete to keep. Article still needs work. Coretheapple (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory + notable fact which molds public opinion in Sweden and Europe. Stefanomione (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing user: Even the nominator has added a Keep !vote.BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has been noted several times. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seriously. WP:NOTNEWS is still policy, and relevant for this article. Huldra (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can not claim WP:NOTNEWS when it has been established that the article is notable beyond that. It makes your !vote irrelevant. This subject has reached national and international attention and been the foundation for discussion about immigration as well. A crime article doesnt automatically fall under NOTNEWS. You do not even like most Deletionists at this discussion take the time to make your argument beyond some "drive-by" policy claim. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh stop it. As user Sjö has pointed out: this incidence has had no lasting consequences in Sweden (or elsewhere, AFAIK). Yes, I know there are some editors on Wikipedia who thinks that each and every murder committed by a Muslim (the vast majority of Somalis are Muslims, after all) is notable. I´m not one of them. And you are not getting to decide which votes are relevant.....or not. Huldra (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huldra, can you cite sources establishing that the perp is Muslim? I had not seen that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory: Nope, but according to Religion in Somalia, 99,8% of the population is Muslim; therefor I would say there is a 99,8% chance that the killer is Muslim, Huldra (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is a perfect example of how reasonable folks can disagree and interpret WP guidelines differently. I understand the positions of both sides, but in my opinion this goes beyond being a news story. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Donottroll (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is long precedent for tragedies that receive widespread coverage and analysis--as this one has--to also have an article on Wikipedia. I don't believe NOTNEWS applies in this case, and I think it's fairly telling that even the nominator has switched their position on this article, as has been noted several times above me in the discussion. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 21:06, 11 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 // 22:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behavior, two editors, who have argued aggressively for deletion, have gon through the article removing sources and material. I am aware that I can go through and pt every source back up, dispute the tags they have hung and so forth./ But, to me, it is a form of WP:WIKIHOUNDING engaged in by editors with endless time to devote who thereby make writing and defending an article on a notable event that some editors find not to their liking nearly impossible to do because of the exorbitant amount of time they force an editor like me to devote to defending a good article under POV attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you are being hounded, you should report the editor(s) to WP:AN/I, and action should be taken, if appropriate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. If you think removing The Sun from the article is hounding I will propose a WP:BOOMERANG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That removal is a typical piece of the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that makes editing aversive, and drives good editors away. The Sun (United Kingdom) is the largest newspaper in Britain, you and I may not like The Sun, but coverage in The Sun is evidence of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about using an unreliable source to source a statement of fact. Removing that source and replacing it with a "citation needed" tag is IMO well within policy. If you do feel hounded, I must point out that neither here nor the article's talk page is the right venue to report that. WP:AN/I would be much better. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this story is back in the international headlines today because perp has been shown to have lied about his age, claiming to be 15 when he is in his early twenties. And this turns out to be a common practice among young male migrants who want to live in Sweden.[34].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two death cases with similar historical impact (on public opinion / in behaviour science):

Murder of Kitty Genovese. The murder gave social psychology a new term : bystander effect.
Death of Cristina and Violetta Djeordsevic in Italy. The case sparked off international attention, because of the typical bystander effect (as seen on this photograph [35]).

A public opinion shaker and mover as the 2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing has equal 'encyclopedial' rights. Stefanomione (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the murder of Kitty Genovese is a good illustration of the difference between a clearly notable murder and this case which is not. The Kitty Genovese case had a lasting effect because it led to a new term. The 2016 stabbing has had no lasting effects of that kind. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wide references for greater socio-political effect than one person being killed, not only the sadly expected vigilante attacks in "revenge" on people who had nothing to do with it, but also the issues of overcrowding of migrants and documenting the age of a criminal. '''tAD''' (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The connection to the vigilante attacks is weak at best. Please note that the took place in a different town about 500 km away and were reported in reliable sources as intended to target criminal street children. The discussions about immigrants and crime, housing for immigrants and determining the age of young asylum seekers have been alive for a long time before the stabbing of Miss Mehzer, which means that the stabbing has created no new discussions. There have been no new terms in psychology or otherwise, no resignations of public officials and no changes in policy. In short there is as of now no proof of enduring notability, unless you count the burst of news reports (which per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE doesn't automatically make an incident notable). Referring to WP:NEWSEVENT there's no lasting effect, there's no significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group and there's no in-depth coverage as defined on the page. There are claims of societal impact in this discussion, but they are mostly unspecified and unsourced and as such can be discounted. While this case might have some lasting effect in the future, I think that at this time it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sjö, the only thing that is too soon here, is this nom. And this case has already had effects. No lasting effects? It happened a week and a half ago... do not speculate. And its not claims it is fact that it has had an impact in Swedish society.BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sjö, I think you're being extremely picky on the criteria here. After all, neither the 2015 Ikea stabbing attack or the Trollhättan school attack led to any dramatic concrete lasting consequences of that nature you're calling for either. To me this incident seems to be well on par with both of those incidents, which is mainly on the society shock/trauma level due to a sensitive and relatively new/unusual incident, measured by the widespread media coverage, so if you're really arguing for your point I would suggest you propose those two articles being deleted as well, and probably numerous similar articles. User2534 (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User2534: - WP:POINT AusLondonder (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is absolutely no sane justification for deleting or otherwise downgrading this article, not to mention that doing so would likely be seen by all and sundry as self-censorship. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Back in the news cycle [36] and it hasn't even gone to trial yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note new article Soldiers of Odin that substantiates impact of this attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claims don't substantiate anything. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falsehood. Please look at sourcing on Soldiers of Odin page before making untrue statements.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note to remind people that extended discussions on deletion pages tend to impede new participants and also delay closings. Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "extended discussion" sort of the point or an AFD? Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 19:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If it's just one editor criticising everyone who puts forward good-faith arguments in favour of deletion, as they also did at WP:Articles for deletion/Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen, it can make the process more difficult. It is also, in my view, an attempt to win an argument by exhausting and overwhelming other editors AusLondonder (talk) 20:09, 16 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 Anathema. Overall consensus is to redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We Are the Bible[edit]

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

Non-notable song which doesn't appear to have charted Emotionalllama (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anathema Song hasn't charted, so fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. I guess redirecting to the band name makes sense, since it's a plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album title; the song has not charted significantly, and has not received substantive coverage in any reliable sources. Still a valid search term, so redirect rather than delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - fails NSONGS. Please note it should redirect specifically to Anathema (band). Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about redirecting to Anathema (band). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:47, 12 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 Snow keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of banks in Denmark[edit]

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

The article adds practically no information over Category:Banks_of_Denmark and entries in the list are or will be outdated and no one is maintaining the list. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; this adds nothing that the category does not cover, and a category is the correct place for this information. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP as a complement to the category, a guideline to which both the nominator and delete !voter's comments are clearly contrary. And I don't understand how an entry in this list could ever be "outdated". postdlf (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep while the article could use better formatting and removing the redlinks would help, the article does not appear to be a candidate for deletion in my view, it's certainly in article for cleanup otherwise. Outback the koala (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially the red links! This is a textbook example of a list serving a purpose which a category can't. Red links indicate missing articles (assuming these are all notable banks). Pburka (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:NOTDUP and Postdlf and Pburka above. Some of the red links are for notable companies, which articles can be created for. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have stated, a list like this complements the category, and the red links will hopefully encourage editors to create article in an area of the encyclopedia that appears to be lacking at present. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep Yes better than a category if it had red links which at present does not actually have. It is the barest minimum of encyclopedic content. Mke it more encyclopedic. How about some basic information about the banks, eg, date established, ranking in size in Denmark. (This would make (some of) the linked to stubs redundant though . . !) Aoziwe (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the list with the most recent information from the source and also copied the size grouping they use. If some information about that can be added, the article will at least have some value. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In its current incarnation, this is a violation of WP:YELLOWPAGES.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 15:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is in much better shape now.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate you changing your !vote, please do keep in mind in future AFDs that we judge articles based on their potential, not their current incarnation. Put another way, we do not delete content because of fixable problems but instead leave them open to be fixed. postdlf (talk) 23:04, 13 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. joe decker ^talk 05:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sameep Shastri[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:Politician, never elected to office, with no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Obvious candidate for speedy A7, but this was declined by another editor for reasons that remain a mystery to me. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, and also fails NPOL. I've written about south Asian politicians a fair bit; this one certainly does not meet the threshold. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the current information and sources suggest solid independent notability from the other listed entities. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 17 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. joe decker ^talk 05:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrett Maier[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial support. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better convincing for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. — Rebbing talk 03:54, 12 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tré Manchester[edit]

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

Minor film director lacking non-trivial support. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBIO as the only serious coverage of the subject is in trivial news pieces about a locally-recorded film. I would say WP:NPOV too—it looks to be subject-created—but it's short enough that whatever biased material remains can easily be rewritten. — Rebbing talk 03:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:CREATIVE, and searches did not turn up enough significant coverage to warrant inclusion under WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:10, 18 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) 00:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn Politics[edit]

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

Unremarkable web content that does not seem to meet the web content notability guidelines. Speedy deleted once before but recreated essentially unchanged. The only sources offered are from those associated with this web content and only support its existence without indicating why it is notable. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the creator of the page is a paid employee of the company creating this content. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Since Scrappers Film Group and The A.V. Club are the sponsors, the only references are self-published, leaving an article that does not meet the WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of any significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not enough coverage to satisfiy the applicable web notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 18 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. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience Valet[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I see is this acquisition story and a few hires in the CSPnet.com source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and clearly does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:04, 18 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. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Paralegal[edit]

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

Article which is written much more like an informational brochure than an encyclopedia article -- the bulk of the article consists of bulleted lists of the names of rules of conduct and by-laws that govern the profession, rather than substantive content about the profession. And the sourcing is almost entirely to the Law Society's own primary source content about it, rather than reliable source coverage of it -- the only independent source here is just a general "how to find and hire a paralegal" article of the type that any newspaper in any province, state or country that has paralegals could publish for reader education purposes, and which doesn't actually address any reason why the concept of "Ontario Paralegal" might actually warrant a standalone article as a separate topic from the general concept of paralegal. There are admittedly some differences in the way paralegals are licensed and regulated in Ontario, but not enough that it would actually constitute a separate topic -- a brief, properly sourced subsection in the main article on paralegals is all we really need, and an article that reads like a LSUC backgrounder pamphlet is not encyclopedic content. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOTHOWTO, and per Bearcat. John from Idegon (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editor. All the pertinent info in the article is already included in the Canada section of the Paralegal article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely needed, as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 18 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) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grady Louis McMurtry[edit]

The article has been created in December 2004, and has been tagged completely unsourced ever since October 2009 Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is real, here's a simple search on his name in books [37].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been unreferenced now for more than 11 years and 1 month. Moreover, the article has been tagged unreferenced for more than 6 years and 3 months.
- According to WP:AFDFORMAT: "... you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on the rescue list in accordance with instructions given at WP:RSL, and then adding the {{rescue list}} template to the AfD discussion by posting {{subst:rescue list}} to the discussion thread."
- I think enough time has passed already, and the measures to save the article are clearly stated by WP:AFDFORMAT. Sometimes the sources found by a Google search can be considered WP:RS, sometimes they do not. That's the normal flow of an editorial process. If the status of the article will improve, this AfD is unnecessary, but meanwhile we can see that in more than 11 years nobody has provided sources that meet our criteria. The article was first introduced in 2008, and nowadays an unreferenced article like this would never pass. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:E.M.Gregory is quite right to state that the length of time that an article has been unreferenced - or even tagged as unreferenced - should never be the sole grounds for an AfD. We have far more articles than active editors - it is quite possible for an article to remain effectively unsourced for a decade or more just because no editor with sufficient interest in the subject has ever looked at the article. Having said that, if an article has been unreferenced for a long period, it frequently is because sourcing has proved difficult - either there are no sources at all or, as in this case, there are plenty of potential sources but, at least at first glance, the vast majority look unlikely to be regarded as reliable by Wikipedia consensus. If so, the nominator should be saying so and not just leave other editors to infer the actual valid reason for the nomination. In this case, the subject looks rather more likely to be notable than a number of related subjects with (not necessarily reliably) sourced articles - however, I am not interested enough in the area to have the expertise to sift out the reliable from the unreliable sources quickly or dedication to do this slowly. PWilkinson (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point precisely. ~~probable~~ Keep Thank you PWilkinson, for flagging me. I did a quick search on subject. It was enough to persuade me that there is a high probability of notability. On the other hand, my time in limited, ad my knowledge of fraternal organizations with an interest in the occult is... limited. What i do strongly urge is that the article not be deleted before someone a serious attempt at sourcing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from probable to Keep because Cullen328's's sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search for reliable sources shows that the topic is notable, and I have added two book sources to the article. When a topic is notable, it is better to make the effort to improve the article, instead of making the effort to delete the article. The article still needs work. I invite other editors to help. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 15 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 00:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Rich[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist and film producer, which was formerly quite a bit longer but has been pruned back for BLP compliance because a lot of the content was either poorly sourced or unsourced and some of it had a promotional/PR hue to it. In its current form, however, what's left doesn't really demonstrate a WP:CREATIVE pass, and isn't sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG: the sources are a single news article in which he's a soundbite-giver, and a transcript of an interview where he's the questioner. So these sources verify that he exists, but they can't carry GNG as he isn't the subject of either of them. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable by our standards. Thanks to the clean-up crew. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as this clearly fails both GNG and CREATIVE. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 20:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this is better convincing for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that the article mentions him interviewing someone who does not even have an article is just emblematic of the stretching to show any notability that shows he is not notable. Especially when such a statement occurs in an article with two lines of text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 13 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 unneeded as the event covered has been canceled. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 2016 South Asian Games[edit]

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

The event has been cancelled, so no need for this article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Heartbreaking to say, but there's no need for the article now. Ayoopdog (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bhutan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Maybe redirect instead? Or paradoxically, as it's been cancelled, there should be enough coverage to meet the notability threshold of having lots of reports of why it was called off! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the circumstances of cancellation are already discussed in the parent article 2016 South Asian Games. No need of redirecting the page as IMHO the title would be untimately misleading for the readers. Cavarrone 21:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overtaken by events. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a pity... -- Hybris1984 (talk) 16:04, 19 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 Deleted as G3, WP:IAR close considering it's now deleted so AfD is unnecessary and let's not use anyone else's time (NAC). SwisterTwister talk

SpongeBob's Toonville Adventures[edit]

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

Unreferenced speculation per WP:CRYSTAL. No mention of it online in WP:Reliable sources. Probable WP:HOAX. Prod contested without explanation by article creator. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 applied No debate here; Nick's not even through a season of Spongebob that started in 2013, and no show would air on six different networks in Canada, and there's zero chance PBS would pick up a Spongebob show even if the network paid them to. Nate • (chatter) 17:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G3 as this is quite obvious. SwisterTwister talk 18:28, 11 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 and redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. Sandstein 20:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Ince[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate for POTUS. Fails to meet WP:BIO OR WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in a minor party's presidential primary (and even for the major parties, the articles exist because they already had preexisting notability for other things, not just because they're candidates in the primary.) While the presidential election is that rare political beast that's so widely covered that even a non-winning candidate who fails WP:NPOL can sometimes still clear WP:GNG, that means the candidate on the general election ballot, not every candidate in the primary — and the media coverage still has to actually materialize. No prejudice against recreation after the Libertarian Party convention if he wins and the GNG piles up as a result — but the mere fact of being a candidate in the primary doesn't get him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding significant coverage in reliable outside sources. Subject is not notable per the guidelines laid out in WP:42 or WP:NPOL. Alternatively, a redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 might be considered.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – not notable, but he is noteworthy enough to list as a 2016 LP candidate, with non-promotional RS. – S. Rich (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per S. Rich -- Hybris1984 (talk) 16:09, 19 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 00:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ravana Flag[edit]

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

It is not a historical flag, but fiction. The content is bias and not EV. See another story of the flag, Ravanas Flag Antan O 16:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable source indicated or findable, also history of flags can be covered in article on Sri Lanka. Shyamal (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in independent verifiable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find significant coverage in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 18 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 keep. per SK1 - No valid reason for deletion, "this needs a world of improvement" isn't a valid reason by a long shot. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High Voltage (1981 film)[edit]

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

this needs a world of improvement Daniel kenneth (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep Needing improvement doesn't necessarily mean the article is a candidate for deletion. I will do some digging around to see if I can find information to improve the page. Also, as noted below, the article meets WP:FILM. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to indicate a possible Variety review for this film. This also mentions the film. Since this is a foreign-language film that precedes the Internet and does not have strong notability, coverage may be buried in print sources. I've notified WT:CROATIA to see if any editors there can help evaluate this topic's notability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film is kept in the Croatian State Archives.[38] (in Croatian), therefore meets one of WP:NFILM criteria ("The film was selected for preservation in a national archive."). GregorB (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per GregorB; meets relevant notability guideline. APerson (talk!) 17:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GregorB. Note also, apart from print sources, there are ones online for expanding the article, e.g. this from this film festival in Macedonia and this from the New York Times. Searching under its original title throws up a lot of material. It was apparently presented at the Venice Film Festival (fuori concorso). And frankly, this AfD should be closed for having an invalid deletion rationale. "This needs a world of improvement" is never grounds for deletion, as I have already told Daniel kenneth at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villamagna and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xylotechnigraphy. Voceditenore (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a valid reason for deletion and per WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as above, "needs a world of improvement" is not a valid rationale for deletion. Cavarrone 19:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per arguments and evidence provided by editors above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:16, 11 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. per CSD G7: author requested deletion Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case Greenfield[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable author. Searches for both him and his book result mostly in false positives, and no reliable coverage. The references in the article are either non-independent or are not coverage at all. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As for the book Business Model Generation which is mentioned in the article, searches for it fail to find anything other than incidental mentions in articles; I couldn't even find much that would confirm if the book is a certified best-seller, although this could partially be due to its name being rather tricky to search. Even then, the mentions it does receive mostly mention a certain Alex Osterwalder as its primary author, rather than Greenfield (in fact, other than Greenfield's website, I couldn't even find any source which suggests that he was involved in the book at all). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reference does not substantiate the claim that his book was "awarded Best Management Book of The Year". I cannot find sufficient sources that would suggest the subject meets the general notability guideline. Self-promoting vanity article. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:57, 11 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. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Federation[edit]

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

Not only do I not think that the topic of this article is notable enough for the mainstream Wikipedia (which is not a fanzine; this belongs on Wookiepedia), but there isn't a single citation in the article. Considering that this article has been here for several years, that's just embarrassing. There is even a template stating that the article needs sources that has been there since 2008 and, after all of these years, this fancruft article doesn't have a single reference. Aside from the lack of notability and verified information, I will also mention just how poorly written it is. Even if this article is rewritten entirely, I'm not sure it's notable enough to have its own article. The Trade Federation belongs on a list article or something. DarkKnight2149 15:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article only covers things from an in-universe perspective; no real world notability is asserted. It contains no independent references, or, indeed, any references at all. The only external links are to a Star Wars wiki and a 404 at starwars.com. It is a plot summary of some things that happened in the Star Wars universe. Fictional organizations need to have real world notability, but the article doesn't assert that this one does, just that it exists. That's not enough. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. As DarkKnight2149 rightly points out: Wookiepedia-articles do not belong on Wikipedia. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 13:51, 16 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. High schools/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akumadan Senior High School[edit]

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

I don't believe that this school meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. It is an extremely obscure school. A google search brings up only 7,830 results--toilet paper (for comparison), brings up 56,100,000... Schuddeboomw (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. Just Chilling (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There will be more sources, but not necessarily on the Internet or in English. Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The number of hits for toilet paper as some kind of metric by which to judge the notability of a school -- or anything -- is just silly and the nominator is urged to not repeat this type of "logic," if one can call it that, if he wants to be taken seriously at Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 17 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 keep. per SK1 - Again not a valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Villamagna[edit]

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

there needs to be a lot of improvement on the content Daniel kenneth (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This clearly passes the notability criteria at Wikipedia:GEOLAND and has a lengthy article in the Italian Wikipedia (it:Villamagna) as well as articles in over 30 other Wikipedias. Needing "a lot of improvement" is never a reason to delete an article. It is a reason to improve it. There are multiple sources available for this article. I have added just a few. Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK1 and Voceditenore. The nom has advanced no reason for deletion. AfD is not clean-up. Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as above, and per WP:BEFORE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:35, 11 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 keep. Per speedy keep#1, the nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection and no one else recommends that the page be deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xylotechnigraphy[edit]

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

Daniel kenneth (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Daniel kenneth, you have not provided a deletion rationale. On what grounds are you nominating this for deletion? I believe the subject is sufficiently notable to have a brief article. Apart from its entry in the The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture, I have found a rather lengthy discussion of the process in The Architect (March 6, 1875) which can be used to expand it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 11 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 keep (NAC) The nominator has withdrawn the nomination, and nobody else is arguing for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albanian football transfers winter 2015–16[edit]

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

Many empty sections, no references, not much notability Fritzmann2002 14:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author has contacted me and added references and filled in blank spaces. Would like to withdraw AfD nomination as the article looks actually pretty nice now. Fritzmann2002 15:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:52, 11 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. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Pam Tarachi[edit]

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

She appears to fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any evidence of notability. I tried all I could to find reliable sources that established her notability but all to no avail. The only reliable source I found is the very brief mention in the Nigerian Tribune. The author's description ( "world class reference") is a reflection of his personal view. I don't see that as an evidence of notability. I also have concerns over User:Adrian 8076's behavior towards other editors on this same subject but that will be a different debate. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:39, 11 February 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£} 13:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per reasons cited by nominator. --—OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 15:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think being nominated for a Shorty Award is nearly enough to make the case for notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this has any better signs of better satisfying the applicable notability, still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 15:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't really find anything to show that this person is notable enough for an article at this point in time. There's an assertion of notability, but not one that's sourced enough to currently pass notability guidelines. Here's my rundown of the article's sources:

Sources

Hope House. This is primary, so cannot show notability. It can be used to back up basic details, but that's about it. Right now what you need to prove is notability and working for or launching a charity does not automatically give notability.
Tribune Online. This is a newspaper, however Tarachi is only briefly mentioned in the article. While the article makes the assertion of "world class reference", this isn't entirely enough to assert notability and at most it could be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source. It does give off the impression that there might be other sources, but this by itself wouldn't be enough to give notability under these circumstances. The only time that trivial sources can give notability is when they're stating something incredibly noteworthy, like a very major award.
Reader's Favorite. This company charges money to review. Authors can get a review for free, but there's a definite emphasis on the paid reviews. Also pretty telling is that the site refuses to give out anything below four stars, so it's not really reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines.
Virtue Christian Book Awards. This award would not give notability on Wikipedia for several reasons. The first is that it was very recently launched, in 2014. The second is that a search brings up no coverage about the award to show that it would be considered notable. However what sets it as a non-notable award is that the site sells reviews, interviews, and other features to authors. A site that accepts money, even if it's not for the award, is almost never considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia. The rare exceptions are places that are extremely well covered in the media and are considered to be institutions. The VCBA is not one of these institutions.
Hope House. This is a primary source and cannot show notability.
Hollywood Reporter. Now the Shorty Awards are an example of an award that would grant notability on Wikipedia, however being nominated for an award will not give notability on Wikipedia. This guideline came about because there were cases of awards where massive amounts of people were getting nominated for awards, but didn't win - and that was their only major claim to fame. Eventually it came about that only winning an award would give notability rather than getting nominated. Of course, getting nominated for something is usually a sign that there may be more coverage out there, especially since many papers and media outlets will cover nominees in the hopes that the extra visibility will help the person win and because a nomination means that there's likely interest in a specific area.
Shorty Awards. This is her page for the SA. This could be used to back up the claims that she was nominated and maybe some basic data, but in this situation it cannot show notability.

There are some interviews via Vents Magazine, however I'm not entirely sure that the site would be a RS. What concerns me the most are things like the magazine's contact e-mail having a hotmail.com domain. Its about page also contains html errors like "Rafa[symposium-profile][symposium-forum][symposium-members][symposium-mail]". I brought it up at WP:RS/N and they pointed out a few things that would make it potentially a WP:SPS, including the fact it's hosted via WordPress. So ultimately what we have here is someone who has a few things to their name that makes it seem like they may pass notability guidelines at some point in the future, but none of the sources are strong enough to really pass at this point in time. Essentially all we have a primary sources, trivial mentions, and things that wouldn't be considered a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Awards don't seem significant. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:04, 17 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 article, but encourage creation of a broader article about the avalanche. Comments below show a rough consensus that the hero of the story is only known for his few days of survival under the snow, which is not enough for a standalone article on Wikipedia. However, in the latter part of the discussion, there is also rough consensus that it can be rewritten into an article about the avalanche. Whoever wanting to write an article on the avalanche may ask me for a the article history to be restored to the draft-space or their user-space. Der yck C. 20:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Naik Hanumanthappa[edit]

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

Prod removed without comment. My concern is WP:NOTNEWS. He is only known for surviving an avalanche. No notability beyond this Gbawden (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is about longest survival seen in the world rarely.117.255.63.90 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

— 117.255.63.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per longstanding policy. Also noting that every single soldier who died in that avalanche is equally notable for giving up their lives in service to their nation. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notability here. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. His only notability is dying in an avalanche, this is a very sad way to go but not encyclopaedia worthy. Zerbey (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had he survived, he'd have likely had a notable career helping explain how. But he didn't. Most people don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The disaster itself should have an article, though. And he could be featured in that story. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I agree with InedibleHulk because the incident/ disaster shocked the whole nation (India) and this topic may be considered for the medical scientific study that how he was found alive under snow and how a person can be saved. The persons serving under extreme conditions must have a GPS device for the purpose they can be found easily without spending much time in searching them without any clue. This topic is not about a person or soldier, It is about a miracle that in whole world there is no person who is found after 6 days alive with heartbeats. A study how he had survived and how he could have saved and died. Thanks if you keep it as a topic of study. It can be retained a having importance as a challenge to medical science.Drkyt (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the fact that his survival for six days in the avalanche at the world's most inhospitable and highest battlefield being termed as a medical miracle, and his subsequent becoming of a sensation and cause for the prayer meetings held all over the nation with a billion plus population(India), i strongly recommend to keep the article. The most important thing here is his death has triggered an intense debate of demilitarisation of the Siachen Glacier both at the establishment and public levels, and could be a potential solution for the Siachen conflict. I just need some time to overhaul the present article. Thank You.-- ~ Irrigator^talk 20:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If 140 dead in 2012 didn't persuade the armies to go home, I don't imagine eleven will. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Public sentiment and Diplomacy in India is much stronger and sensitive. You will get to know this once you study the Military history of India.-- ~ Irrigator^talk 02:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many Indians have also been buried for Kashmir. Comes with the territory, and I see nothing indicating India plans to relinquish the claim. This article doesn't even mention a controversy, let alone a ramification. Just a sad story about a slow death. If you seriously want to overhaul it, there's no time like the present. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I've added excerpts from the medical bulletins and provided the references. As suggested by some members above, medical aspects of this case surely call for keeping this article. It was also mentioned in media that he was also the Yoga instructor over there. Will add this aspect also, once I get some reference. This adds to the medical aspect. Though it will still take some time for the medical community to decide whether this is record of longest survival under such conditions. --Manoj Khurana (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has numerous problems, including WP:NPOV, excessive detail about the treatment process which has no bearing on any of the claims of notability above, and no direct support for such claims. If there is some sort of actual medical miracle here, then an article about that needs to be a source, and the discussion on the page needs to be focused on that sort of newsworthy claim. Simply saying that someone survived for six days tells us nothing about how, for example, no one has ever survived for more than three days and thus six days is amazing, or whatever; you cannot simply assume that that's an amazing statistic without citations. This is compounded by the fact that he did not ultimately survive; with that taken into account, this whole story is not nearly as surprising, as it follows a common pattern with hypothermia victims, where the excessive cold puts the person into suspended animation, and they survive a surprisingly long time, only to die of organ failure, dropping blood pressure, etc. during revival (rewarming shock). As InedibleHulk mentioned above, if there is a place for any of this information in Wikipedia, it is likely as part of a page about the larger incident here, which seems to be the noteworthy item. 76.220.30.55 (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It is an important topic useful for researchers. ~ Dr. Raj kumar ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

— Duplicate vote: Drkyt (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Delete Sad event, which might deserve an article, but the articles subject itself is not notable. Also - as pointed out - the article has multiple other flaws, including NPOV. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was an remarkable incident, so this article will be informative.

'Suggestion' In case if this article is considered to be removed, kindly consider this suggestion, this article can be changed as 'about this incident' and the current content of this article shall be made part of the article 'about this incident' for ex: Siachen avalanche survivor, Siachen avalanche, etc. Markonal (talk) 18:46, 16 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. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GeForce 1000 series[edit]

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

Article is based on pure speculation, no naming sheme for the new generation has been confirmed. Should not have been created without having some basic facts Denniss (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article should indeed not have been created without a citation for the name of the GPU family. Note that there are citations, though. These are primarily around the name of the microarchitecture (Pascal), mind you. It's also worth noting that the product family will be released later this year. In any case, I withhold my vote. --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. None of the references mention a 1000 series, which suggests speculation on the part of the author. I understand that what the author wanted was an article about the next generation GeForce series, but couldn't call it "Forthcoming next generation GeForce series product", and decided to name it. But:
- the lack of a name — even a codename — is a strong indication that the product is not so far into the planning phase as to have gelled, and
- the lack of references provided by anyone other than Nvidia indicate that at this point the only information available is promotional, and doesn't speak to notability.

With a made-up name, how are people even expected to find this article? ubiquity (talk) 14:06, 17 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 The Contender 2. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 14:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Fraza[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Participation on a reality show does not confer notability especially considering his lack of success. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Contender 2. --Donniediamond (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOX so he doesn't deserve his own article. A redirect is OK with me. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 13 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plaxis[edit]

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

Not a slightest indication of notability Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is parhaps the most used piece of geotechnical software in the world. - Ssolbergj (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: so far, this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I searched for the company name on the websites of Trouw, de Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblad and Algemeen Dagblad and I got absolutely nothing. A GScholar search does turn up a few hundred citations to the software, but the ones I've checked contain acknowledgments of use, not in-depth coverage. I'm tending toward a delete !vote. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "acknowledgments of use, not in-depth coverage"? To some degree, scientific and encyclopedic relevance depends on the amount of usage. As written in the article, Plaxis is important software for many branches of civil engineering, and is developed internationally. Magazine and newspaper coverage, or whether or not scientific articles write about the software rather than simply mentioning that it's used, doesn't necessarily reflect encyclopedic relevance and scientific importance (in academia and for civil engineers). The latter are significant in this case. Note there are almost half a million Google hits. To delete this article would IMO virtually be equal to disregarding the field of geotechnical engineering. Why not delete all articles in Category:Computer-aided engineering software. Certain things don't get much media coverage, but are nonetheless noteworthy in Wikipedia. - Ssolbergj (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssolbergj: Perhaps you're right, but then I think we should refocus more on the software rather than the company, avoiding vague/unsourced claims such as "Plaxis has fostered its ties with the academic world and increased its network". I was comparing it to Exact (software company), which (as a former public company) has had a lot of coverage in the general and trade press. For Plaxis, I don't even find a mention on computable.nl. Can you point to peer-reviewed papers that specifically assess the software, or discuss its workings in-depth? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plaxis is ranked amongthe most innovative software companies. Factors in this list include revenue size, sales growth, level of recurring revenues, sales through partners, degree of internationalization and profitability.- Ssolbergj (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORPDEPTH, in a footnote, states that "Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide. Inclusion in a notable list counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject." I can't quickly find evidence that anyone has picked up on that list, except the companies that are on it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I'm sure it's a notable company within its small niche, I don't think it is notable per se. I can find only a few sources mentioning it. Furthermore, a large part of the article appears to be closely paraphrasing the company's "History" page. I tagged the article about that. Shritwod (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "within its small niche"? That's a rather ignorant description of the scientific branch that is soil mechanics. IMO Wikipedia should treat it like the significant and important discipline that it actually is, and Plaxis is a very popular and important piece of software for numeric calculations, having been developed sinche the 1980s. - Ssolbergj (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you might call it ignorance, I would regard it as a sense of perspective about the level of information that should be regarded as encyclopaedic. Shritwod (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO significant geotechnical calculation tools are encyclopedic. The tthousands of video games with an article in Wikipedia are for instance no more important, to say the least, even though video games generally get more media publicity. -Ssolbergj (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it is true to say that there are inconsistencies in what is regarded as encyclopaedic. Some categories have an enormous amount of cruft which I personally think should be excised. In this case, I tried to base my judgement on what would be notable for technology companies in general. I understand that in its specialist field (which is notable) that the company is potentially notable in itself, but I don't think it infers general notability. I understand your point though. Shritwod (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least as an article about the company. I would not mind a re-creation of an article about the software itself, for which there is this seemingly reliable review. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, I agree that the focus of the article should be the software, instead of the corporation. I made this change in the article. - Ssolbergj (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per WP:CORPDEPTH. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added some 3rd party sources now. More may be added. - Ssolbergj (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To me, this has all the earmarks of a promotional piece. Of the three references, the first is an endorsement about how much better Plaxis is than its competitors, the second doesn't mention Plaxis, and the third is their home page. Lots of information that they might want their customers to know, but that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article --they have a marketing department! they have a human resources department! they have an office in Singapore! But it's just a product like hundreds of thousands of others. If this is the most used piece of geotechnical software in the world, why have no independent reputable sources taken notice? Wikipedia is not a directory of software products. If notability cannot be demonstrated through depth of coverage, the article does not belong here. ubiquity (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as the article simply still has no solid enough signs of a better acceptable article. Delete at best and draft & userfy before moving to main articlespace again. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as laudable as the field is, unfortunately the dearth of in-depth coverage of this company makes it fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 18 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 The Who. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who's for Tennis?[edit]

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

The album never materialized. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NMUSIC#Unreleased material applies, though it's questionable whether coverage is/was sufficiently "significant". Currently this album doesn't appear to be mentioned in band-related articles apart from the navbox; contextually it should be mentioned somewhere. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 11:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Who as this is currently questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 4 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) 06:07, 4 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) 06:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is not an actual album. Legacypac (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another similar which should probably be put here as well: Rock Is Dead—Long Live Rock!. The mentioned recently made covers for both proposed albums were made by the same artist which is how I found this other one. Notably other unreleased albums for other big bands don't have any articles: http://www.earcandymag.com/altuniversecovers-0212.htm. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:05, 12 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kettel[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The closest it got was an AllMusic one-paragraph bio in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly nothing better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG. I could find no reliable sources that satisfy the standards required of both WP:GNG and WP:N. There's plenty of "music pages", social media, discography, etc but nothing that satisfies the general notability guideline required for any article. Hence, I am voting delete. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just for my own $0.02, I came to wikipedia looking for this page today and it was there, so i was happy to find it.
here's an english write-up on their label and a recent release http://igloomag.com/reviews/kettel-secede-when-can-sending-orbs
98.67.220.54 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - Well, I think notability should be redefined or refined if articles like this are deleted. I've just stumbled upon the work of this artist and I was happy to find out that wikipedia had an article for him. Sources are not good though.Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:12, 4 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 // 03:13, 4 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) 06:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is being relisted—there is unanimity that the sources are insufficient. Closest is Igloo mag and we don't have a verdict on whether they're even reliable. czar 12:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 13 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 Bratz: Genie Magic Soundtrack. All songs are usually redirected to the album if it's not notable and this is no exception, Consensus is to redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me & My Girls (Bratz song)[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable songs. All I get are lyrics site and YouTube videos in a search. Coverage = zilch. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bratz: Genie Magic Soundtrack as a near non-notable track, not to mention that the song itself is utter shit. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 00:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Bratz: Genie Magic Soundtrack via {{R from song}}. They fail WP:GNG in GNews. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:20, 15 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DXER[edit]

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

Delete. Can't find any reliable sources; lacks notability. Sixth o f March 05:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If we had a separate article for Energy FM rather than it being at DWET, I would have recommended a redirect there. But as it stands, that isn't the case, and there doesn't seem to be any reliable coverage for this particular station. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no Energy FM in General Santos; it's a hoax. It was made up by TV5Ozamiz who is trying to evade blocks. Additionally, there are videos uploaded on YouTube, probably by the vandal, trying to fool someone about its existence. Sixth o f March 00:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Would it be alright to nominate this article for speedy deletion instead? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article, as currently written, isn't claiming that the station is branded as Energy FM — it's claiming that the station is branded as Dream FM, and the "Energy" hoaxing issue pertains to attempted rewrites of the article that have been getting reverted. It's entirely possible that the station doesn't actually exist as "Dream" either — the creation of total hoax articles about radio stations in the Philippines is a major problem that WikiProject Radio Stations is all too aware of — but the lack of an Energy branded station in General Santos, when that's not even what the article is claiming in its current state, isn't enough information in and of itself to determine whether DXER's entire existence is a hoax, or whether it does exist and the attempts to rewrite it are the hoax. It's still an obvious delete if we can't source it, but as an administrator who has the power to speedy delete hoaxes I would have to decline a speedy nomination on that basis without additional confirmation. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is, back when Dream FM still existed, I do recall that they did have a radio station in General Santos, I'm just not sure if this was their call sign, so things are more complicated than they should be. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Wikipedia accepts the fact of having a broadcast license as sufficient notability for a radio station to be kept if that claim can be reliably sourced, we do not grant an automatic inclusion freebie to an unsourced or unsourceable radio station just because it claims existence, precisely because people have tried to create articles about hoax radio stations that didn't actually exist at all. I don't have enough information to determine whether this is an outright hoax, or a real thing that somebody's just trying to rewrite with hoax details instead of the real topic, so I can't support an immediate speedy yet — but precisely because it's impossible to verify that one way or the other, it's still definitely a regular old AFD delete if somebody can't source it. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 14 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of Iranian Revolution[edit]

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

A completely WP:OR stub that utlizes a single source even though there is no mention of these songs in the source. Was thinking of nominating for speedy, but let's have some discussion first. (there are zero results on google, if no WP:RS discusses this in detail then perhaps we should avoid doing so as well) FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I typed in the title, Iranian revolutionary songs, Google suggested Iranian revolutionary songs 1979. I went with it, and got three Youtube videos that are related:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDzGhisTmYc by داریوش اسفندیاری (Darius Esfandiari)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaK4nRddhBw by Islamic Channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwkjyjm-P38 by Kumail12

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is unlikely to be expanded, because of lack of sources. The article creator had already merged the content of this article into the article on the 1979 Iranian Revolution.[39]-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 12 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolutionaries (2016 film)[edit]

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

Amateur short film with no apparent coverage to attest notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable film. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: "The Revolutionaries" "Santhosh Venkobi" "Kim-Nadine Hoch" "Vinay Chandra"

Delete for currently failing WP:NF. Having only as Facebook page as a "source" does not bode well, but if this is shown as released and gains better sourcing, the topic can be reconsidered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proper Source trailer released on youtube i.e. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx-Oxnxh-3s . Full Movie will release in March. The trailer is notable . You can check views on the youtube link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritikkgoel (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Chatellier[edit]

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

Individual does not meet the notability threshold for an article. Running for office does not establish notability. ALPolitico (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plainly fails WP:GNG. I can't find third-party coverage about this ex-general considering a political career. Pichpich (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an unelected candidate for office does not get a person into Wikipedia by itself — and he isn't even that yet, but is merely a candidate in a party primary, and that counts for even less. Plus the article is completely unsourced, and reads far more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article — and even an actual senator doesn't get to keep that kind of article, let alone an unelected candidate. Bearcat (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are not even any minimally convincing sources and thus also any other signs to suggest the applicable general notability for politicians. SwisterTwister talk 23:58, 17 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Cunningham[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable. Never played in the big leagues. Principal author has been inactive for two years.Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Playing for the Italian Football League's Catania Elephants is not notable enough for a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my news search turned up only one local news article with passing mention.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 11 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evianne van Gijn[edit]

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

Suspect a conflict of interest – creator and major contributor to article has only edited this page and another page to provide a link to it. The photo of the subject is also uploaded by the page creator, and described as the subject's own work. I am new to this, but I also suspect the subject may not meet the notability requirements in any case. Nthsealord (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Though there may be a COI, I still think keep because she is president of University of Cambridge Graduate Union, which is notable. The subject also appears to be covered in a handful of reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Head of a student union is not notable per se, nor are other aspects like being a lobbyist. Subject appears to be a somewhat freshly-minted PhD...perhaps notable in the future, but clearly not now. Agricola44 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 17 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafik Yousef[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, article seems to have been made on the basis that this guy was an Islamic extremist. There have been lots of foiled terror attacks or suspected terror attacks, and there is no evidence that this stands out in any way to be covered in an encyclopedic article. Parsley Man (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parsley, it would have been nice if you had notified me that you had created this AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the correct WP:NOTNEWS concern, this biography does not meet WP:1E or WP:BLPN AusLondonder (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a case of WP:1E. I created this page. Yousef was a member of Ansar al-Islam convicted in Germany of plotting to murder a Prime Minister who was visiting Germany, served time, was released and attacked a police officer with a knife; officer responded by shooting him. He died of bullet wounds. Point: he is notorious for 2 incidents.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a few sources on assassination plot. This: [40] "German authorities say Islamic militants behind Allawi assassination plot are sending fighters from Iraq to Europe" gives an idea of flavor of coverage; investigation, arrest & trial took 4 years. International coverage in anglophone press throughout that period. Me, or anyone with the time, can add to article, including German and other language coverage of both assassinaiton plot and attack on police officer. ParsleyMan failed to perform WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG, granted it could be usefully expanded, but it should be kept as per WP:EXIST, and because even sourcing on page when it was nominated established the involvement of this operative for an terrorist organization in 2 widely publicized incidents, especially the first, a well-documented and widely-discussed attempt to assassinate a Prime Minister of Iraq during a visit to Germany.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject plotted to assassinate the Prime Minister and also attacked a police officer with a knife for which he was killed. Two significant events which seems to qualify for a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 02:30, 18 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Nicol[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as the chief administrative officer of a city of just 9,000 people and as a non-winning electoral candidate. These are not claims of notability that get a person into Wikipedia per WP:NPOL, and the sourcing here is entirely to primary sources (like his own website and the city's website) which cannot get him over WP:GNG. I note as well that the article was created by a user named "City of Selkirk" (thus a direct conflict of interest), and that a different WP:SPA, probably still the subject himself, tried the exact same thing three years ago.

While formerly consensus favoured keeping non-winning candidates as redirects to lists of their party's candidates, in recent years that consensus has been weakening — in their current format such lists are no longer allowed to contain WP:BLP1E information about the candidate, but are instead limited to little more than a "name, rank and serial number" repetition. So many such redirects are now getting deleted (or just not even getting created in the first place anymore), because the target isn't allowed to contain enough substantive information about the person to make a redirect useful anymore (or because the redirect was actually sitting on top of a more notable person with a stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for their name than the candidate had). And in addition, even when this was a redirect there was a long slow-motion edit war over whether it should redirect to a candidate list or to Selkirk, Manitoba.

So I don't see much point in reverting it back to a redirect yet again — at this point, it should just be deleted outright. (And even if there is a consensus to keep it as a redirect instead, the repeated recreations suggest that we need the hammer of AFD to keep it that way.) Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City of Selkirk Response:

I would like to start off by apologizing for any inconveniences I may have caused; this was my first attempt at creating a new article, and had planned to improve the articles content over time. The material I used was only meant to act as a foundation while I found newer/more relevant material to include. As my username would suggest, I am resident of the City of Selkirk, but I can assure you that the subject of the article had no knowledge of my endeavor to create this article. I was also unaware of any actions that took place in previous years regarding the subject of my article.

I can also assure you that my account was not created to act as a WP:SPA, but instead was created to correct erroneous information regarding the City in which I live. Such as our population size, which is actually over 9000 :)

If you have to delete the article as it currently stands, that's fine, but all I ask is that you don’t use the hammer of AFD, and instead give me another chance to provide an article that will meet all necessary criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by City of Selkirk (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, our population statistics on Wikipedia have to be sourced to official census data — as of the Canada 2011 Census, Selkirk had a population of 9,834, so we can't claim on here that it's larger than that until the Canada 2016 Census results tell us what new number to give. So that's not a thing to correct, as such. I'll grant that I rounded down to 9 instead of up to 10, but the difference between 9K and 10K is not the magic bullet for the notability of a local civil servant.

But at any rate, municipal CAOs or city managers are not necessarily a class of topic that are entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist. Such a person could potentially get an article if they could be sourced over WP:GNG, or have some other credible claim of notability besides being CAOs — but even the CAO of Toronto doesn't have an article, and I'm hard pressed to come up with any credible reason why we could possibly consider Duane Nicol to be more notable than Joe Pennachetti. Of the very few Canadian city managers who actually do have articles, every last one of them got it for some other reason — Alain Marcoux in Montreal was a provincial MNA in the 1970s, Penny Ballem in Vancouver was on the board of directors of the 2010 Winter Olympics — and none of them have articles because of the CAO role itself. When you get right down to it, being the CAO of a municipality is a role that largely flies under the media radar. Their existence might sometimes get namechecked in coverage of city hall — but if they're becoming the subject of media coverage that's substantive enough to count toward GNG, then almost by definition something has gone very wrong. (An actual article about Joe Pennachetti, for example, would have to depend far too heavily on coverage of Rob Ford's adventures in being Rob Ford, and not nearly enough on any actual coverage of anything Pennachetti did on his own apart from that crisis.)

And being a candidate in a federal election doesn't help a person's notability either — if a person didn't win the election, then they don't qualify for an article on the basis of having been a candidate. Rather, non-winning candidates can have Wikipedia articles only if you can properly demonstrate and source that they qualify for some other reason (such as having already held another notable office, or having preexisting notability as an actor or writer.) Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as questionably applicably notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat & because I searched, and I can't source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:45, 11 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MedPage Today[edit]

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

Seems to be full of dubious claims that fail verification. Currently has no partnership with the uPenn SoM, and previous partnership was misrepresented; see my comment on :talk and my edits which add two{{fv}} tags. User:Jrcla2, did you notice that the citations don't support the content?Elvey^(t•c) 22:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the current article suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 10 February 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, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is an advertisement and fails GNG above all. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 11 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stan G.[edit]

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

Contested prod (well not sure if contested as it was removed by a IP) Possibly non notable singer Wgolf (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is a real notable artist and radio personality most of this information is available on their radio shows and podcasts. (material added by IP 74.123.125.242) .E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not meet general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found many social media mentions and videos, failed to find reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:50, 18 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centro de Física e Investigação Tecnológica Dep. de Física da FCT/UNL[edit]

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

Notability not established. Imagine if wikipedia had useless stubs like this for every research group on the planet. I do not see the value in that. Furthermore, the claims of this article are all unverifiable since you won't find that information, even if you Google it yourself. Ysangkok (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better independent article. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. suspect COI as created by single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 11 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music Theatre Wichita[edit]

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

Previous WP:PROD that was restored, however WP:G11 still exists, article is very promotional, not neutral POV, barely notable and distinctly meets G11 requirements. SanAnMan (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that whoever requested the restore didn't even sign the request, so we have no idea where it came from. Just a note. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 19:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy instead as this is questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SwisterTwister I would normally support userfy, however, the original author (User:Spellingbeefan) no longer has an active account, and in fact, only contributed to this one article. As for "questionably solidly notable", the only articles searched are either local newspaper/TV reviews of their shows and some notes from BroadwayWorld.com, a questionable site at best. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I agree that the nominated version of this article has a heavily promotional tone. But I think this can be addressed through editing, and the company is a long-lived cultural entity of some real significance in Kansas, with lots of coverage apparent in the usual Google and HighBeam searches. I've taken a first crack at reducing the promotional language; further improvements and more sources are certainly needed, including perhaps removing the long list of historical productions, which is probably excessive for this kind of article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Followed your lead, agree that the list of productions wasn't needed. Cleaned a few other things and tagged some areas that still need cites/sources. I normally don't like using the baseball bat method of cleaning an article, but I think it this case it worked. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have removed POV issues and seems nicely sourced. Appears to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that article now meets criteria. Request to withdraw the nomination and Keep. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:40, 15 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; soft deletion is not available as it has already been PRODed and contested. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaram Ramineni[edit]

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

Does not demonstrate how this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people), and the one source mentions him in half a sentence only. Doing a news search for the name in quotation marks draws a blank. Schwede 66 18:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unsure - needs to be circulted to WikiProject's Fashion and Beauty Pageants as specific interest groups. NealeFamily (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging those two projects on the article's talk page. Within a day, they will thus get the AfD notification. Schwede 66 22:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article creator has posted some comments on the talk page; amongst other things declaring a conflict of interest. Schwede 66 08:39, 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 17:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches at Books, News, browsers and WP:INDAF immediately found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 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 nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Télesphore Saint-Pierre[edit]

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

Biography of a journalist, sourced only to an "our writers" PR sketch on the website of a publishing company that holds rights to a book he wrote — thus not an independent source — and citing no reliable source coverage to demonstrate that the book would qualify him for a WP:AUTHOR pass in and of itself. Writers, even dead ones, do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just because their own publishing company provides verification that they exist — it takes media coverage in independent sources to get a writer in here. Delete, unless the referencing can be significantly beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 3 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 17:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was heading towards a Delete opinion until I found the subject's entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, which I have added as a reference to the article. Presuming that to be a notable selective source, it would seem reasonable to follow their assessment of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, that is a much stronger source than the original version contained — so consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep kudos thanks to User:AllyD He looks notable to me: [41]. It is important to slow down and search for sourcing when the claim is that the article is about a well-known journalist and author of a century ago. Adding a third bok ot the article, he shows up in news archive searches, as well. And French-Canadiana have more claim to a plge on WP in English than Francophone journalists form France becauuse Canada is bi-lingual. Non French speaking Canadians and American descendants of Canucks are likely to want to know about this old-timer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that while that Google Books search brings up a lot of hits on his name, the majority of them are either passing namechecks or books where he's the author rather than a substantive subject — so while the number of hits suggests potential notability, the substance of them doesn't exactly offer us a ton of usable sources per se. And also, just for the record, my rationale had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he's francophone — although I'm more comfortable speaking and writing in English than French because I was raised in a predominantly English part of Canada rather than in Quebec, I am of French Canadian background myself, so attempting to rectify our undercoverage of Québécois notables who fall through the cracks because of the language gap is one of the things I set as my personal priorities on here. Even so, I can still only WP:BEFORE in resources that I have access to — and French-language media coverage that predates the Google era is still one of the things I don't have an adequate resource for, so even with that goal in mind historical stuff can still sometimes slip past me if the topic hasn't also englished its way into The Globe and Mail. So I'm thankful for the improvement, and am withdrawing the nomination accordingly — but none of this proves that I didn't do any of the necessary priors. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 13 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 November 2015 Paris attacks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zouheir[edit]

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

No notability at all Kimdime (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 23:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 23:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as he is not currently mentioned at the subject article and I see no convincing needs for it as this is questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 3 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 17:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a greatly abbreviated account to a short mention in November 2015 Paris attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely fails WP:BIO1E. Parsley Man (talk) 02:29, 11 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. Consensus is not clear between "keep" and "merge," so please continue to discuss on the talk page whether this should be merged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nekojiru[edit]

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

I had prodded this one back in 2015 but the tag was removed by an IP stating "because this is the only decent article about her". In that time there has been little to no improvement to the article to show how she is notable as a person. Her work Cat Soup is notable but per WP:NOTINHERITED there is not enough coverage about her to meet WP:GNG. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Comics Journal calls her "one of the alt-manga icons of the decade" (two of her works have been included in English alternate manga compilations Comics Underground Japan and Sake Jock). It links to a translated remembrance from Jisatsu Sarechatta Boku by Yoshiaki Yoshinaga that includes many biographical details. THEM also mentions that she "had made headlines for the first time in 1998, when she committed suicide", so that might be another angle to investigate. A column in Viz's Pulp also seems to be written about her; the available Google Books excerpt says: "On May 10 of this year, a manga artist committed suicide. She called herself Nekojiru, a combination of 'cat' and 'sweat,' but there was really no deep meaning behind the unusual pen name"... This spanish VICE article gives an overview of her at the beginning. The Visual Narrative Reader offers the brief observation that she "often placed her characters in cruel situations." Opencooper (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~Merge to Cat Soup That's her most notable work and the other ones Neko Dango, etc. are variants of it that can fit in that article. Cat Soup can describe her origins and development of the series. It can also briefly describe her suicide as to why there won't be more follow-ups. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it would be Merge, wouldn't it? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point. Thanks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge: This is a stubby article, and could do with some references, but it is not a throwaway one-liner, and it tells the story of the creator of a "WP:significant" work, so I think deleting it would be vandalism. Keep for now; if someone were to merge it skillfully into the "Cat Soup" article, well that's fine too. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Cat Soup. I'm seeing this as a situation for which WP:NOPAGE applies. AngusWoof's argument convinces me that a merge and redirect is the right approach here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to this if someone decides they want to undertake the procedure. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject article has large amounts of what appears to be original research, and very little of the rest is sourced or, in some cases, even particularly relevant. I've merged the small amount of usable content into a new "Background" section in the target article Cat Soup. Someone knowledgeable about the topic ought to take a look at it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so Merge if needed as this is questionable for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 8 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} 02:14, 11 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kimihiko Fujisaka[edit]

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

He's known for character designing Drakengard 3 and The Last Story but is that enough to have a Wikipedia article on him? Not notable in the anime / manga project as he does not have an entry on ANN or on Media Arts. [42] If the article stays and he is indeed notable, I recommend he be removed from the anime/manga wikiproject. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's also known for Drakengrad and Drakengard 2. --87.148.65.32 (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any serious in-depth coverage or third-party sourcing to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there is at least one interview of him, it's still not enough to establish notability outside of his work as an art designer for the aforementioned works. This probably wouldn't work as a redirect either given how he seems to have had work in other works as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage in reliable sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:36, 17 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lost and Found (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hard to find evidence of notability outside of their own output and well-meaning fan content. Note: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-lost-found-mn0000214432 and other web pages refer to a different band. Dweller (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article and its sourcing is noticeably questionable. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but very sadly, as this is one of my favorite bands. There's just not enough coverage of the band to put it over our notability thresholds. Stein auf! schetm (talk) 21:36, 11 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Riley (diplomat)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. Being a deputy head of Mission is not inherently notable. Fails WP:NACTOR. for his single acting role. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Comment have added additional related projects to the articles talk page - South Korea and NZ Maori task force to expand basis for this discussion. NealeFamily (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 10 February 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, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nothing here suggests that he has a valid notability claim under our inclusion standards for either diplomats or actors, and the sourcing doesn't even approach being good enough to satisfy WP:GNG instead — reference #6 is strong, but everything else is a blog, a primary source or a glancing namecheck of his existence in a source that isn't about him. Neither diplomats nor actors automatically get to have articles just because they can be verified as existing — we have standards for both fields to determine the point at which a person in those occupations becomes eligible for an article, and he hasn't passed either set. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable diplomat. not an actor at all, merely appeared in a minor reality TV series as himself.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 11 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Qiq[edit]

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

Failing WP:BLP1E Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are u kidding me (Subjects notable only for one event) , Really !! . He is Correspondent at the Saudi News Agency Almajd TV Network, He is almost everyday on TV. or B/c u r Israeli editor u want to delete the article for any reason ? let us be clear? Warda99 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting this article, let's see about expanding it. Noteworthy subject. Dream of Goats (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i am expanding it, i think we should remove the deletion template.Warda99 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:BLP1E policy gives three conditions that must all be met to make it applicable. I haven't checked condition 1, but conditions 2 and 3 are pretty obviously not met on the basis of the sources in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:50, 10 February 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, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this article was nominated for deletion two minutes after it was created. Let's give people time to finish writing before nominating their work for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been in the Israeli press regularly for more than a month. Quite a few appearances in the world press. Has been adopted by Amnesty. Etc etc, sounds pretty notable to me. Zero^talk 01:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is a major figure across the world as he is making clear 'freedom or my life'. He's spoken about across twitter and facebook, there is a major petition in favour of him. If this page is deleted people will assume this is due to bias against Paletinians. He is imprisoned without charge or trial.He is on the brink of death, according to his lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara Apps (talk • contribs) 08:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, i expand it with v.good sources, it's good now. i hope we can remove the deletion template now--Warda99 (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved editor will make the decision about whether this should be kept or deleted based on this discussion. Please don't remove the template yourself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This deletion proposal looks to me entirely like a vexatious attempt at propagandistic censorship on behalf, or in favor, of a party that comes out of the solidly NPOV facts recounted here looking very bad, namely Israel. I note that the proposer has made *no* attempt to defend the deletion proposal against multiple clear and well-argued objections. The extreme eagerness shown in making the proposal when the article was only two minutes old almost makes the case for dismissal on its own. Imagine if such proposals became commonplace. Improvements have been made to the article already today; I have volunteered my own assistance for further improvements. KindaQuantum (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make such an assumption of bad faith. Yes, it was a mistake to nominate this for deletion so soon after its creation, but people who live in Israel are just as capable of making an honest mistake as anyone else. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is quite offensive and on the edge of failing WP:ETIQ and particularly WP:NPA. The fact that I come from Israel has nothing to do with my opinion and decision to nominate for deletion. If I were thinking to show extreme eagerness to delete, I would definitely use speedy deletion tag and not generate a discussion. For me as an editor, who created articles like Miki Kratsman and Uri Gershuni, who are the most outspoken critics of Israei occupation in the Israel art world, such accusation is especially painful. I do think that this still belongs as part to the article Palestinian prisoners of Israel. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge) as a developing event. Like Zero0000 has stated, there is information that shows that he's notable outside BLP1E. Are there sources that cover this person outside what we are deeming a "single event" (the hunger strike)? Yes. Will the person otherwise be, or be likely to remain a low-profile individual? I'm iffy. - I think it's too soon for me to make a call on this one. Is the event significant and well-documented? Again, I believe that the answer is yes. It's clearly causing global attention, and there's plenty of coverage on this event. I think that the best solution for now is to keep the article, expand it, and see how the developing event plays out - or if there's an article on the event itself, merge this article with it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an article Palestinian prisoners of Israel with the subsection of 'Hunger strikes' that in my opinion is the place for this information until it becomes larger than one event definition. I looked at other articles, mentioned in connection with hunger strikes in Israeli prisons. Most of the people mentioned are famous on it's own beyond hunger strikes, being either military commanders or senior political figures. Persons, like Khader Adnan or Abdullah Barghouti. If we take, from another hand, article about Hana Shalabi, she was known only because of her hunger strike, and the article remained one event definition, without any subsequent development, and look like it will stay that way. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:14, 14 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Beittel[edit]

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

This subject has had an interesting career (high school teacher, assistant dean at UMKC, design director at Hallmark, First SVP for Creative at American Greetings), but none of it adds up to notability by WP standards. Previously deleted, but restored as a contested PROD via a WP:REFUND request. I can't find any significant coverage that could improve this article. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant impact within the greeting card industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft & userfy if actually needed as, at best, this would be mentioned at the American Greetings company article because there are no better signs of a better independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure what the "significant impact" was when, like the nominator, my efforts to find any reliable sources about the article subject have come up with absolutely nothing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 15 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph H. Beittel[edit]

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

My searches for Ralph Beittel and Grace Heller indicate that he fails both WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG. I don't see any indication that any of his compositions were notable. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I admittedly know little of popular music in this era, and becasue the article reads like a personal memorial, the claims are probably accurate, his name and some of the titles mentioned did turn up on searches in lists of copyrighted material, but I got no hits in searches of books or newspapers, even tried an historical newspaper archive since some for the claimed songs are pre WWI , but I just can't source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 18 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 Dinkan#Dinkoism. overall consensus is to redirect, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkoism[edit]

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

Questionable Notability, see WP:WEB also, WP:SOURCE and to a certain extent WP:PROMOTION I have tagged a couple hopefully relevant Wikiprojects. The article is of stub length, and has only one third party source. This doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable to be listed on an online encyclopedia. Littledj95 (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Littledj95 (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Littledj95 (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dinkoism is a spoof religion that is emerging in the southern Indian state of Kerala. It is the first and possibly the only main stream parody religion, of the lines of FSM in India. I strongly believe it is worth keeping, while agreeing to the fact that the article is of sub length and lacks substantial sources. I shall also notify some of the volunteers from Malayalam Language Wiki as well who may be interested in contributing here. The Dinkoism movement is gaining a lot of traction in mainstream media, both regional and national media especially in the light of their mockery towards religious fanaticism and intolerance. Several national news papers have reported it recently. Please allow some time to remove 'weasal words' from my opinion and establish them with trustworthy sources. Thank you - Tux the penguin (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dinkan#Dinkoism - Thanks for pointing out this option -Tux the penguin (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. In my opinion, it does barely meet our notability requirement. I say we should keep it for now, give it a chance to be expanded and improved, and revisit this question in six months. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dinkan#Dinkoism. Thanks to SwisterTwister for pointing out that that section exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dinkan as this is still questionably independently notable and unlikely to be a better separate article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dinkan#Dinkoism. Notable as a section, not as a separate article. --Fixuture (talk) 19:02, 17 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 Flapjack. Obviously non notable bloke, Best off redirected to the dab page (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flap jack[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Article is unsourced, and I can't find independent reliable sources (or figure out why he is supposed to be notable). —teb728 t c 02:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flapjack; this was how it was before it was replaced by this article. I also cannot establish notability. Adam9007 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as I patrolled this as reviewed and I was going to also replace the original as the current article is now currently questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flapjack: non-notable artist. PamD 09:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if this article survives AfD it should be moved to Flap Jack, with a hatnote there pointing to the flapjack dab page. PamD 09:58, 11 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Schoeben[edit]

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

non notable. The person who principally developed the products listed here (if it was a single person) would be notable; the person in charge of marketing them is not. Additionally, there seem to be no usable references--the ones in earlier versions of the article are about the products. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggests a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NRV. The article itself is written like a resume, but does not indicate significant contributions to warrant notability. A search through Questia shows three minor one-line mentions, as a group leader in marketing at Microsoft, as head of Apple's product marketing, and as chief marketing officer at Carbon3D. A general web search shows his mention on social media, linkedin and other user-generated sites. None mention any notable achievements. — Maile (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A medium ranking executive like millions of others. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:05, 17 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Studios[edit]

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

It seems to be written as an advertisement (see ==Awards==), and seems to be a pretty obscure company. Schuddeboomw (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as basically nothing listed is enough the applicable notability, nothing else even minimally convincing of better solid coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly a noteworthy Nevada-based firm. But it doesn't seem to meet WP:COMPANY or more specifically WP:AUD just yet. Most of the coverage of the Lopiccolos and their firm appears to be of the press release variety. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 17 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.