Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 February	13 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The result was Snow Keep/Withdrawn Non-admin Closure As the article now has enough references to prove some sort of notability I withdrawn my nomination and with no outstanding delete arguments close this discussion McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stadionul Municipal (Turnu Măgurele)[edit]

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

Non notable sporting venue fails WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has references, it has everything needed. Rhinen (talk)
Keep - The nom has given zero rationale as to why they think this fails WP:GNG when the coverage, already linked in the article, is in-depth and significant particularly from Ziarul. --Oakshade (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems fine. At most redirect. Giant Snowman 18:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources in the article seem to indicate notability. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 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. Although it's not unanimous, there seems to be broad agreement that the sources that are available for this person don't rise past the level required for WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Nelson[edit]

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

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

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

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

Procedural nomination. This was listed for prod, with the rationale "not notable" but no further detail, which was then deprodded by an anonymous IP -- however, after reviewing the sourcing I'm on the nominator's side. Of the 27 sources here, 10 are not about her in any substantive way -- a couple of them briefly namecheck her existence in the process of failing to be about her, while most of them fail to even include her name at all. Another 10 are sources, such as user-generated discussion forums or university student newspapers, which cannot count toward meeting WP:GNG at all. The real kicker here is that out of all the media coverage of the Roosh V drink-throwing incident, not a single one of those articles names Nelson at all: they all cover an unnamed woman throwing a drink at Roosh, and Roosh's own discussion forum is the only place where Nelson is claimed as the thrower. But if an unreliable source is the only place making that claim, then WP:BLP unequivocally prohibits us from repeating the claim here. And of the seven sources which are substantively about her in publications that do satisfy GNG, all seven of them are covering her in the context of a single incident. Accordingly, her encyclopedic notability has not been properly demonstrated: the majority of the sourcing here is total garbage, and the little bit that is acceptable just makes her a WP:BLP1E. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, it's more than one incident. In 2013, she alleged that she was profiled by the cops and excessively fined ([1] from La Presse and [2] from CTV News), and, in 2015, she filed a lawsuit that alleges that the police assaulted her in a protest ([3] from Le Devoir and [4] from CTV News). She also was involved in posting pics of uncover cops ([5] from CBC.ca). However, since all this coverage is about Montreal cops, I'm thinking that this could be summed up in two sentences in Service de police de la Ville de Montréal#Criticism. I'm curious what others think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Katie Nelson has launched a landmark case against the Montreal Police (SPVM) for political profiling and is being represented by Julius Grey in this matter pro-bono. This is a case that will undoubtedly make its way to the Supreme Court of Canada which makes her notable in and of itself. The importance of this is demonstrated by the national media coverage (CBC, CTV) Nelson generated when the initial case was launched and more recently after she was hospitalized. The Roosh V stuff is minor compared to this, but its prominence in this discussion really seems suspect to me. Theleaflord (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its prominence in the article is the thing that's suspect: the timing of when the article got created (just nine days ago, within hours of Roosh naming her as the drink-thrower on his discussion forum) strongly suggests that it's the real reason somebody thought she was includable, and the sourcing for that linkage to her is a blatant WP:BLP violation. So no, you do not get to dismiss that issue as irrelevant or "suspect" — even if the article does get kept for other reasons, the entire Roosh section has to be entirely removed from it.

And incidentally, WP:CRYSTAL applies here as well: we can't deem her notable because of a user's prediction that the court case might make it to the Supreme Court someday, but rather have to wait until the case does hit the Supreme Court. And even if that does happen, what that will justify on Wikipedia is an event article about the case, to which Nelson would just be a redirect rather than a standalone BLP in her own right as a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Roosh V section apparently has been removed, though I honestly don't see why. Roosh named her as the beer thrower and unless you are suggesting that Roosh V is not notable (something I will wholeheartedly back you up on) the reference should be included. Minus the Roosh V incident, Katie Nelson is still notable, and not just via some blip of media coverage. Her case against the police may have brought her into the spotlight (it is, as far as I can tell the first time in Canada someone has sued the police for political profiling), but she has remained there and appears on morning radio talk shows and other media frequently. People in Montreal know the name Katie Nelson. Recently, she experienced another as you would call it "blip" when she was hospitalized during a protest. More national and international media coverage.08:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Theleaflord (talk)

The problem with the Roosh V section is that all of the reliable sources reported an unnamed woman, and Roosh V's own user-generated discussion forum was the only source that linked Nelson to it. It's not that Roosh is not notable — unfortunately he is notable, whether you or I like the fact or not — it's that the source which named her as the drink-thrower was a chat forum and not a reliable media source. And if she's notable for more than just the police case, then that certainly hasn't been demonstrated by the fact that virtually everything outside the police case is parked on unreliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually Roosh`s verified Twitter account which named her and then linked to the forum. Regardless, minus the Roosh stuff, Nelson is still notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleaflord (talk • contribs) 08:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited here was the discussion forum, not Twitter. Regardless, Twitter isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia content either — until an independent, reliable media outlet publishes verification that she was the drink-thrower, Roosh's own self-published identification of Nelson as the drink-thrower doesn't get into a Wikipedia article about her regardless of what platform he claimed it on. And again, fully 66% of the sourcing here is unreliable sources that cannot make a person notable under WP:GNG, and the remainder is piled virtually entirely on the police case — if she's notable for more than just the police case, then she has to be reliably sourced for more than just the police case. Bearcat (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Disagree with deletion, Nelson has numerous citations for different incidences prior to Roosh V incident, including the "Assault 2015" and as well test case political profiling, wiki editors should be aware of contentious or malicious flags for deletion because of once incident, mainly the Roosh V incident. We are aware of trolls editing these pages and deleting them for other purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh78e34 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Gh78e34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please familiarize yourself with our WP:BLP1E rules: we do not keep articles about people whose notability is tied to a single blip of media coverage deriving from a single event. And Roosh isn't even the 1E I'm talking about — that's an outright WP:BLP violation that has to stay out of the article regardless of whether it gets kept or deleted for any other reason, because it's not reliably sourced that she was the drink-thrower, so if that were her main notability claim this would actually have been speedy-deleted as a BLP-zero-E. Also kindly read our no personal attacks rule: I'm one of the longest-serving and most prolific contributors to the entire project, and am quite well-known as a respected and trustworthy contributor who does not let my own personal feelings about a subject interfere with the facts of whether the article meets our inclusion standards or not — I've voted to keep people I personally dislike if the sourcing and notability was adequate (hell, I've even created articles about people I personally dislike, but who cleanly passed our notability standards), and I've voted to delete people I personally support if the sourcing and notability wasn't adequate. And my own personal politics are far closer to Nelson's than to any of her opponents, so this isn't an attack against her for any ideological reason: the notability and quality of sourcing just are not there under our inclusion and sourcing rules. Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point exactly, it is not one single event, there are on going events - not just Roosh V. For example, the SPVM, Israel, Civil suits, activism, Occupy Wallstreet - it is on going.. I am sorry, but I think you may need to evaluate your position here. Plus, the roosh V incident has since been edited out of the page - the page consists of numerous long time events, seemingly since before 2010 - this is notable in itself. And as well, mentions from other pages. I would suggest the re-evaluation of your opinion on this page. I am familiar with the rules you have cited, and this page does not violate them. Objectively, you should reconsider your position. Until you do, this objection looks biased. You have not provided a sufficient argument for removal. If sourcing is an issue, than better source. But it appears this page falls in line with notability, with a few minor edits it would stand adequately against deletion - if this is your only problem, than simply edit the page.

The only sources here that count as reliable ones are covering her in the context of one event, not several events — all of the other events you list are sourced to unreliable sources, and/or passing namechecks of her existence in coverage which isn't about her in any substantive way. Even with the Roosh stuff stripped, the referencing is still fully two-thirds to sources that cannot support any topic's notability. And no, this is not a "personal bias" issue, and a brand-new editor who registered just to create this article does not get to tell me that they know my motivations better than I do. Bearcat (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . It would appear this page has already been up for deletion in the past - and was unsuccessful in that. This should be taken into consideration as well, how many times will this page be flagged for deletion? Clearly, it is adequate.

The prod process and the AFD process are two different things. A declined prod does not make the article ineligible for AFD discussion — in fact, in most cases a declined prod virtually ensures that somebody will take it to AFD for wider discussion. A declined prod does not prove in and of itself that the article is "adequate", especially when the prod was declined by an anonymous IP number rather than an established editor. Bearcat (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Whether the prod was declined by an anonymous editor or by a registered editor, as I am sure you know, has no bearing whatsoever on whether the validity of the action or on whether the article is adequate or not. 72.94.61.22 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IPs quite frequently remove maintenance or project templates from articles without a valid basis for the removal, so no, the matter of whether an article was deprodded by an anonymous IP is not entirely irrelevant — it doesn't make a difference insofar as permitting anybody to restore the prod template a second time, but deprodding does not preclude the article from being escalated to AFD if other editors still disagree with your opinion on the matter. In fact, in most cases the very fact that two different editors have different opinions about the same content inherently demonstrates that a wider discussion is needed. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . We cannot simply judge this page just because one event is currently a news item, or "Viral". The page consists of numerous references to historical events, that which exist of public interest and as well are influential and referenced in other pages - It isn't surprising the page was created after another event became well know, that is not a good enough argument for deletion, many pages are created after a person or living person becomes "news worthy", especially when the page consists of not one single event. As we can see above it references many different things, I suggest reviewing deletion of this page, it does not seem logical, especially in external and wikipedia references to this name.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination makes a convincing argument that this BLP is referenced only to unreliable/inadequate sources to support sufficient notability to meet eligibility criteria beyond BLP1E. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How are numerous CBC/CTV/Global reports as well as articles in the Montreal Gazette and other recognized media unreliable or inadequate? Katie Nelson has been widely covered not only for her lawsuit against the Montreal police, but for her recent hospitalization during a protest, student tribunals at Concordia, etc, etc. Perhaps editing to add new sources like interviews and debates with her on CJAD Radio dealing with both her lawsuit and the tribunals, two separate stories of her activism would improve the page, but this is clearly a notable person. Theleaflord (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The student tribunals at Concordia are sourced to Concordia's own student newspaper — but student newspapers do not count toward WP:GNG (a newspaper has to be both general-market and daily to count toward establishing notability). Hospitalization after a protest is not a notability-conferring event at all, so that doesn't lift her from a BLP1E to a BLP2E. And radio content can only contribute to GNG if that radio content is (a) national rather than local (i.e. CBC Radio = yes, CJAD = no), and (b) archived somewhere that a reader looking to verify the sources can actually hear the entire piece for themselves. CJAD is a source that can be used for additional verification of facts after sufficient sourcing is already present to satisfy GNG — but it is not a source that can contribute to the passage of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Student tribunals were also reported on and Nelson interviewed by Global TV Global TV. The hospitalization, and in particular the fact that Nelson claims it was done by undercover police was carried by CBC, CTV, The Montreal Gazette, countless news websites around the world and yes, the student press as well, even though you don't count that. My point is that pretty much every time she does something or is part of something major, all three local TV stations, newspapers, websites and sometimes international press interview and/or report on her. Why? Because she is a notable person. How many people get interviewed by various establishment media outlets as well as independent media on various subjects? Theleaflord (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards delete but where does it say in our policy that a newspaper must be published "daily" to be considered RS? That's news to me. Surely weekly papers such as Georgia Straight are RS. And I'm not aware of any policy that disallows student-run papers such as the Link or McGill Daily as RS. Did I miss that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment . Don't delete this page please I just used it to cite a paper.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.98.228 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've read through all the opinions here, and I'm siding with Bearcat, who makes valid counter arguments against every reason given why this person is independently notable. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through the sources in the article and ran a couple of searches before coming to the same conclusion as Nom. Delete because this is a highly inflaved , poorly sourced article about an individual whose notability I cannot find support for in reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Bearcat points out, the sources are really, really sketchy and, therefore, help further make the point that this individual does not meet Wikipedia's standard of noteworthiness. Cla68 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyway, regardless of my questions to Bearcat about the (in)admissibility of non-daily or student papers as RS, the only time Ms. Nelson becomes the prominent subject of significant independent coverage is for the lawsuit, from what I can see. So BLP1E does apply. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. she received considerable coverage in both French and English as well as some international coverage when she was knocked to the ground by (she claims) undercover police during a protest. While the coverage does mention her lawsuit (which is, I believe, the first of its kind in Canada), that is not the focus, the attack, a separate incident, is. She has also been covered for her work with the Concordia BDS Campaign, student tribunals, etc, etc. When there's a story that she is a part of, local media in Montreal seems to gravitate to her. If this article was improperly sourced, fine, but that demands a different type of box than delete for the subject not being notable. While I believe that bearcat and others are operating in good faith, I suspect the original person who flagged this page for deletion wasn't. In fact, a week before this discussion began, the page was vandalized to read "Katie Nelson is an terrorist" (bad grammar left in if only to suggest this was a hasty edit) and then repaired. I suspect the same person who vandalized the page originally flagged the page for deletion. I also suspect that they are a fan of Roosh V, whose acolytes have been in an online war with Ms. Nelson since he identified her as the beer thrower (which, incidentally, would prove her notability in a heartbeat if it was admissible, given the fact that the video of the incident went viral and was picked up by Vice, Buzzfeed, random media outlets in France, etc.). My point is that if this wasn't for a vendetta, we wouldn't be having this discussion. No one would have flagged this page which, it seems, could now be deleted on a technicality or due to the inexperience of the person who created it and their sourcing. Theleaflord (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Climate change mitigation. The default is Merging and then redirecting so closing just as Merge (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climate action[edit]

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

The concept is largely a duplicate of Climate change mitigation, which I would count as the main article. Having several articles on one subject is confusing. I suggest that any unique content is merged with the other article and this one deleted. Shritwod (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge I agree. I worry that casual readers will only stumble upon these stub articles instead of the main one. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Climate change mitigation
- Climate change mitigation: 'Climate change mitigation consists of actions to limit the magnitude or rate of long-term climate change'
- Climate action: 'Climate action describes various efforts to prevent what is considered dangerous climate change'
- Ditto Climate Action Plan, which should (also) be a category/ies.

Aoziwe (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on doing the same with Climate Action Plan, which is a distinctly different and worthy of its own article. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have this discussion in the proper place. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Action Plan. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 16:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge, whatevs, this does seem a rather pointless article William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to climate change mitigation: for reasons stated by proposer. (I have not read either article, only skimmed.) I did search climate change mitigation and there is no wiki-link to Climate action. Probably those who worked on this this article were not aware of the other article. Notifying the writers of this article should be done if that has not taken place already. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into climate change mitigation. Note: climate change mitigation has been an article since 2005. Climate action was created last month. Also note that Climate Action Plan is a rather messy disambiguation page, not an article. — Gorthian (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect; I agree with reasons in the prior comments. Coastwise (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Climate change mitigation. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 16:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to climate change mitigation, as this is largely a WP:CONTENTFORK of that article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:56, 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 Prime minister. Not really sure if this needed a discussion but closing as redirect anyway (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statsminister[edit]

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

Basically, a "statsminister" is a prime minister in Nordic countries. Articles pertaining to the history of prime ministers of respectively Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden are already listed in their own, separate entries on Wikipedia. In addition, there's nothing which sets Nordic prime ministers apart from the PM's of other countries, or anything else that would require them to have an own article under the banner of "Statsminister". Furthermore, this article has been unsourced for a decade, leading me to wonder whether this entry is just an original research piece. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 20:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Information and mentions about "statsminister" were already available at Prime minister. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mr. Magoo. An alternative is turn into a disambiguation page, if significant English-language usage is attested.. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prime minister. This article is WP:NOTDICT. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:44, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superbrands[edit]

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

While Superbrands conducts some surveys whose results are widely reported, I cannot find significant coverage of Superbrands itself that would indicate it meets Wikipedia's standards of notability, particularly in light of WP:CORPDEPTH. The current article is extremely spammy and largely based on primary sources including themelves and press releases by those they called "superbrands". Huon (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I took a look at the article and I don't think the article is really salvageable. I agree that all sources outside of the article are not sufficient for WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep plenty of coverage to satisfy GNG. Here's one possible Google search of News sources - there are many such options: 197 Ghits --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

most of those hits do not cover superbrands in depth. LibStar (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dweller, I would appreciate it if you could point out which of those 197 Google News hits discuss Superbrands itself in some detail. Huon (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy as a compromise so delete and restart to mainspace when better as the listed sources are something but this article is not yet fully set. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This book search probably provides a better starting point for research into notability, if anyone is prepared to do that rather than make a snap judgement by guesswork, than any of the searches above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, while Superbrands may be notable, Superbrands Council which links from the article is an unsourced BLP vio. I will tag that for a speedy. Murry1975 (talk) 11:40, 12 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 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. most of the coverage is quoting a spokesperson for Superbrands rather than about superbrands as the subject of the coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That comment misrepresents the book sources found by my search above, with only a handful of the 46 results quoting a spokesman for Superbrands. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like this passes WP:GNG to me. There are numerous sources that cover the organization in-depth and discuss the impact of major notable corporations and organizations that are recognized by the article subject ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). Also mentioned in many books ([16], [17], [18], [19]) that appear to be used in educational settings or give advice on building positive public relations. The recognition given by the article subject has significant coverage and looks to have cultural and corporate impact. Sure, I didn't find a large amount of sources that only cover the company in-depth, but I found enough evidence that, put together, looks to pass WP:GNG. The article may not be extensive or huge, but I believe that it passes and is notable enough for an article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of sources available online. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 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 delete as WP:A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After money forevaa records[edit]

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

Non notable record company. Fails GNG. Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this even suggests minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 5 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 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete All I could find about the label are Facebook and Google+ pages. Their Facebook page has ... 37 likes. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:56, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Conrad (actor)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, no major roles, fails actor notability guidelines and general notability guideline for want of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 02:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar 02:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tough call, but yeah, he has no notable roles to speak of (supporting parts in Next Karate Kid and MK Annihilation being his biggest, and those were in the '90s). Article itself is badly written and unsourced. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 18:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has had some prominent roles such as in Atilla 2nd billing, Lovers and Liars 3rd, Airborne 3rd, Next Karate Kid 4thbilling ref allmovies/RT. IMDb are unreliable on this actor as they give him 2nd billing in The Promotion whereas RT and allmovies have him down about tenth. Haven't checked for reliable sources yet.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable roles also include Young Hercules and now in Amazon series Patriot.RS hard to find, still looking.Is this unreliable here ? Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of credits is not a reason to have an article on an actor. The two sources are IMDb and his personal website. Not notable. --Soetermans. T / C 22:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 5 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 19:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient independent coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He got mentioned by name in this review and this review, but this isn't really enough to establish notability on its own. We'd need enough reviews that critique his acting that we could create a credible article. Merely listing his filmography is better accomplished at websites like the IMDb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing is best left to IMDb- found 6 big errors there this week alone, three of them with actors being given second billing when they should be about 10th.Any information there needs to be double-checked.Atlantic306 (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source czar 18:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG. It's unsourced for a reason. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:34, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarCon[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable local student conference. No mainstream coverage - almost all of the sources are blogs and PR, with the remainder consisting of student newsletters/papers. Nothing to establish the notability of the conference. Bilby (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is advertising. Curro2 (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' and perhaps briefly mention at the parent organization's article as this is still questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 10 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 19:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at some of the sources. Buzzfeed one is a "user article" by ScholarCon. HuffPo ones are from the person who is "President & Chief Operating Officer for The National Society of Collegiate Scholars" according to the person's Twitter account — as in the runner of the con. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not demonstrated by independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 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. sourcing has not been providing and keep votes based on assertions unfortunately carry no weight Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Book Circle[edit]

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

A Gnews search result for the organization name yields no results. There are a couple of Serbian refs but with the benefit of Chrome's translation function, the print refs don't appear to confer any notability on this organization, which appears to fall well short of meeting WP:ORG. I have also nominated its category for deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems strange that a book circle recently formed in Canada can only be sourced to fleeting Serbian coverage. The long Politika article used as a source in the article actually had no mention of the book circle. I can see nothing of significance online. Sionk (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think conflict of interest most likely applies here: this article was created by an editor whose substantive contributions to Wikipedia all consistently revolve around the person named in this article as the group's founder. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me sir but before you "think" that conflict of interest "most likely" applies, how about you do your research? I have nothing to do with this literary organization or with any of the people associated with it. My favorite writers do however happen to write for it. How about next time you assume good faith? – Tempo21 (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough reliable source coverage here to pass WP:ORG — the sources are virtually all the primary kind. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I definitely feel it merits an article. – Tempo21 (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Tempo21 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hmmm, this one is a toughie. I'm going to say keep if the references can be made up to par. The category should definitely be kept as is though. PidgeCopetti (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me ask: you say say "if the references can be made up to par." What if they can't? Because as it stands nows, the references aren't up to par and Google news search shows zero reliable sources? Could you please expand on why this article and the category should both be "definitely" kept, in your view, in light of the fact that you do admit that right now, WP:ORG isn't being met? thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one is a keeper for sure. What, just because Serbian writers write for it means it's not notable? There are a number of notable contributors and from what I see, even the former president of Serbia writes for the site!. Keep. McMeade (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source coverage is what makes something a keeper or a throwaway — even the most impressive claim of significance in the history of human expression counts for nothing if RS coverage doesn't support that claim. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 10 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 19:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Difficult to judge as I'm not capable of reading Serbian. Since it is based in Canada, I would also expect English language sources to give evidence of notability. And right now, I can't even access their own website. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. English language sources to give evidence of notability have been stated. Why can't the website be accessed, I don't understand? Tempo21 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to me this article was created by the president of this society. The same editor created articles about the president and the founder of this society. What is the importance of this society, anyway? Does it really deserve an article? Or this is just all about self-promotion? BTW, Predrag Markovic was never elected president of Serbia. N Jordan (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@N Jordan: Do we know that Tempo21 is affiliated? Because he has been quite active in creating articles, a category and a navbox, offering keep !votes at Xfds, populating bio articles with links, etc. If he is using Wikipedia as a soapbox for himself, I'd want to start tagging the articles with connected contributor tags, at the very least. @Tempo21: would you care to declare an affiliation? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: Tempo21 is Djuradj Vujcic, the owner of the Urban Book Circle. He is an independent sports journalist. He is fluent in Serbian, lives in Toronto, a fan of Partizan Belgrade soccer club... If you check Tempo's contributions at Wikipedia - they match his profile. It would be difficult to find somebody else with that level of knowledge and interest in those specific areas. It is possible that he shares his account with his father, Prvoslav Vujcic, the founder of the Urban Book Circle.--N Jordan (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, sir, but how dare you falsely accuse me. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: I am not Djuradj Vujcic. I can give you my name if you want but since you dabble in libel, I don't trust you. Tempo21 (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ I have nothing to do with this society let alone am I its "president" (it doesn't even have a president). I just deemed it article-worthy as there are definitely notable writers writing for it and that's irrefutable. And yes, N Jordan, Predrag Marković was not elected President of Serbia nor did I say he was. I said he was the President of Serbia. That's just a stated fact and not my opinion. I am not affiliated: I just love literature. Thank you for noticing that I have been quite active in creating articles, categories, navboxes etc. I do not care to declare an affiliation as that would not be the truth as I am not in any way (nor have I been) affiliated with the Urban Book Circle. Thank you. – Tempo21 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apology, Tempo21. I didn't know you said Predrag Markovic was the president of Serbia. That "keep" vote was signed by McMeade - not by you. Predrag Markovic was an acting president of Serbia for 4 months. The Urban Book Circle doesn't have the president - this society has the owner! BTW, I think you already voted. --N Jordan (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about McMeade's vote, I was talking about Predrag Marković and many times in the past I've told people here that he was the president of Serbia even if it was for four months. Tempo21 (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Per WP:NEXIST, it appears that this organization has had no third-party coverage from reliable sources (see WP:GNG for info), making sourcing problematic. Without such references, this organization doesn't merit an article. Mind matrix 20:55, 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 00:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BassMonster Records[edit]

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

I declined a speedy for BassMonster Records, as the article makes a claim of notability as "one of the top dance labels in Norway". However, I am unable to verify this claim, I can find no reliable references that discuss the topic, (fails WP:GNG), and none of the artists are notable (fails WP:NMUSIC #5) - all blue links are to unrelated topics. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a newly founded company of 2012 is unlikely to have better coverage to suggest convincing notability and there's nothing else noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 5 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 19:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find virtually no reliable sources and has signed no notable artists. cyberdog958^Talk 08:39, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BeWeeVee[edit]

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

A software company and product. No indication of notability (WP:GNG) in the article, and none in a Google News search. Sandstein 13:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability despite the few links listed. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 10 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 19:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like the product has been fairly dead since 2010. I found some mentions of the product but they were nigh all from 2009 and 2010. Note that the article has also just been wiki-managed after 2010 — as in the creators gave up on it. I can't even visit their website. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:37, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Burkum[edit]

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

Only notable as a member of the band Audio Adrenaline. All other content was deleted. The WP:SPA account, which I believe is associated with the subject, requested that content be deleted for the sake of privacy. I deleted that content and all other unsourced content and that leaves very little. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Audio Adrenaline, as certainly independently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 5 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 19:27, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Davis (critic)[edit]

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

Lack of notability. No references to reliable sources have been added to the article, and I don't see that there's anything of susbtance about him online. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that this critic is notable. He's sometimes quoted in reliable sources ([20], [21], [22], and [23]), but we still don't know any biographical details about him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only does article show no claim to notability, neither do sources NinjaRobotPirate found nor anything I can find. For a critic to be notable, there would have to be sources discussing his work as a critic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Models[edit]

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

Contested prod. The article's subject fails WP:NBOOK. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one reason this article is notable is that a google search for mental models gentner stevens turns up a large number of scholarly articles that list the book as a reference. Also because the academic section of WP:NBOOK says that if a book is published by a respected academic press that should go a long way toward establishing notability, and it was, it was published by Erlbaum which has since been bought by Taylor and Francis. Also, in the theory of mental models, it is the next major work on mental models since 1943, when Kenneth Craik wrote The Nature of Explanation, the book credited with originating the theory. This is admittedly a specialized area and I realize this is a somewhat dry reference book, but I think a major strength of Wikipedia is helping to preserve information. For instance, a very good history of mental models on lauradove.info has disappeared from the Internet, and it was one very good source that mentioned this book's place in the history of mental models. I plan to try to find that article or an equivalent and to add more references and content to the article to help bolster my argument. Also, both editors and most of the authors of the individual articles in the book are themselves notable which should also add to the book's notability. Spalding (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps although I am willing to change because my searches only found a few mentions here and there, and questionably better for this article. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar lists 2,289 articles that cite this book, easily meeting the requirement of WP:NBOOK#Academic and technical books that we should consider how widely the book is cited by other academic publications when evaluating notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. I found some academic reviews for the work and offhand it looks like it's fairly widely cited. I didn't add any of that, but I did add three reviews. I'm actually mildly familiar with this work and I believe that it was mentioned in one of my readings this semester, but I'm not really familiar enough to flesh this out at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 12 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 19:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews added by User:Tokyogirl79 seem to put this past GNG. 86.17.222.157 brings a number of citations which seem to indicate this passes NBOOK. BusterD (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, reflected in article with reviews added by User:Tokyogirl79. WorldCat also shows holding by over 500 libraries [24], good for such a 30+year old book. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TechM Global[edit]

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

Not notable. No sources can be found for this company AdrianGamer (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 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 19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 17:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no indication of notability. Can't find any web results for this company, and in fact it may actually be a hoax or a very small operation.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be recreation of Mota Softworks, which was speeedy deleted last November--Prisencolin (talk) 18:32, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BeHappy2Day[edit]

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

Notably, Lacks creditable citations, & kind of reads like an advertisement. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 16:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried searching for anything about the site but only found their ads. The number of users doesn't agree with Alexa's statistics about the site's unpopularity, and we all know how dating sites push made up user accounts all the time just like Ashley Madison did. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable website (all citations are not from reliable sources), and reads like a WP:PROMO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to support contention that this is a popular or well-known dating website. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article is involved with some sockpuppetry with a now blocked paid editor, so I'd recommend salting this if/when it's deleted, as there have been attempts in the past to recreate deleted articles. Doing it after the deletion would just save some energy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Serrano (cyclist)[edit]

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

Subject—a cyclist—doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:NCYCLING. For general notability, the only published sources I can find fall under WP:ROUTINE. — Rebbing talk 16:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He rode for a Pro Continental team, which meets the notability guidelines of world level cyclists, as Pro Continental teams can participate in World Tour events.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reconcile that with the guideline for male cyclists? It seems to me that if riding for a professional continental team was, by itself, sufficient to satisfy notability (as you say it is), the criteria would include that—but they don't. (Of course, there are exceptions to the guidelines, but I don't think this is an exceptional case.) — Rebbing talk 23:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see he participated in a category 1.1 race, which, had he won, would have satisfied notability—but he didn't. — Rebbing talk 23:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Competed in various 2.HC races (such as the Vuelta a Burgos and the E3 Prijs Vlaanderen before it was promoted), which is the second tier of professional cycling, but never at the top tier. No wins at professional level. Relentlessly (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By the looks of it, his best result is a stage win of Tour d'Azerbaïdjan which wasn't a 2.1 event when he rode it in 2010. As a result, fails WP:NCYCLING and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not fit the notability criteria, which is enough for me. Sorry Seacactus! Megaraptor12345 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 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) 01:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of International Innovations[edit]

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

Near as I can tell, this is not an accredited learning institution. I declined Speedy A7, as educational institutions do not qualify, I find no reliable sources discussing the topic, much less anything that says it is other than a self-made learning course. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: entirely without notability, indeed only 11 google results (including a Speedy deletion on Wikia), none of them of any substance. And since it's not a real university, can't see why it shouldn't be speedied here too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chiswick Chap. No evidence of notability or accreditation; not registered in Companies House; no evidence this organization even exists besides their own webpages. Altamel (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOLS, and even WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES ("Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.") as all Google hits are self-created listings (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:02, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hira Thind[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. None of the sources provided in the article are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. My search for additional sources came up empty. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 15:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also looked around and couldn't find anything on this actor. Not-notable enough even to list what they were in in the article it appears as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet NACTOR or GNG. Has not received significant independent coverage from secondary reliable sources. Potentially speedy as A7, no indication of importance. Cowlibob (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search reveals no reliable sources that would amount to passing the WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG thresholds. /wiae /tlk 22:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:24, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Grossman[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Of the given references, one is by Grossman herself, two are speaker respectively author bios, one talks about fitness workout in the workplace and uses Grossman as a rather random example, and the last is a local newspaper. The tone is unduly promotional, borderline G11, and would need a complete rewrite even if Grossman were notable in the first place. Huon (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The history of content additions reveals probable edits by the subject herself whose career is neither notable nor currently developing, as she appears from a web search to be unemployed and inactive since 2013. No reference is more recent than 2006, indicating the topic is not progressive in significance per WP:UNDUE. Recent edits by different floating IPv6 addresses and the new user, Usuariodesconocidodiverso, including removal of banner notices and a new personal picture, are exclusively on the subject herself, self-aggrandizing, WP:PEA, WP:PLUG and WP:COISELF. Recommend for speedy deletion. --Zefr (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Suspicious series of WP:SPA accounts seemed to have popped up over the years to edit and maintain this article too, suggesting autobio + sockpuppetery. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find much evidence of notability. This doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not indication of notability. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:POLITICIAN, which seem to be the closest parts of WP:BIO to apply here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Lite[edit]

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

The topic of this article lacks notability as it fails WP:PRODUCT. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tagged for notability since September. No improvmt. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Keep The front page of the official website for the software did actually show an 9/10 independent review from the magazine Linux Format, and this search did find a couple more reliable sources about the program, so I guess this is a somewhat notable topic. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Noyes, Katherine (2012-10-26). "For a beginner-friendly distro, try Linux Lite 1.0.0". PC World. Archived from the original on 2016-02-12. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
2. Stahie, Silviu (2012-10-29). "Linux Lite 1.0.0 Amethyst, a Fast Distro for the Masses [Screenshot Tour]". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2016-02-12. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
3. Germain, Jack M. (2013-10-24). "Linux Lite Is Heavy on Features and Usability". Linux Insider. Archived from the original on 2016-02-12. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
4. Nestor, Marius (2016-02-01). "Linux Lite Editor's Review". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2016-02-12. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
  The review notes:
  Linux Lite is an open source and freely distributed operating system based on the popular and highly acclaimed Ubuntu Linux distribution, but using the lightweight Xfce as its default desktop environment.
  ...
  Summing up, Linux Lite is a really great, stable, productive and beautifully crafted Ubuntu-based operating system that can turn old and semi-old computers into powerful and modern workstations, replacing that deprecated Windows XP system.
5. María López, José (2012-11-28). "Linux Lite: Linux amigable y ágil" (in Spanish). Top Ten Reviews (Purch). Archived from the original on 2016-02-12. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
  The article notes:
  Linux Lite es una distribución Linux basada en Ubuntu que se caracteriza principalmente por su facilidad de uso y por ofrecer un buen rendimiento con poco consumo de recursos, gracias sobre todo a su Escritorio XFCE.
  En Linux Lite encontrarás un sistema operativo Linux totalmente operativo ejecutable directamente desde CD e instalable con ayuda de un práctico instalador, además de contar con el navegador web Firefox, la suite ofimática LibreOffice y el Escritorio XFCE, sencillo y fácilmente configurable.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Linux Lite to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cunard's sources look good to me. Also, this review from Chip and a release announcement from InfoWorld. It's not Ubuntu, but it's got enough coverage that we should keep it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PP MUKUNDAN[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP Zamaster4536 (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:31, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rurika Kasuga[edit]

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

Manga artist only notable work for English Wikipedia is Fancy Lala, of which she only did a manga adaptation (not the original work), so recommend redirect to that. ANN only shows one role. [25] MADB only shows a bunch of one volume manga none of which are that notable. [26] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this meets the basic notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given how she made several manga rather than just the Fancy Lala manga adaptation, I'm not sure if a redirect would work in this case. As coverage is lacking in either English or Japanese, I would recommend a delete for this one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:51, 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. ignored spa/sock contributions.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Age is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.75.78 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariane Bellamar[edit]

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

Article created by COI editor. DePRODded by another possible COI editor. PROD reason still stands: " No evidence of any notability. Scant coverage and what there is comes from tabloids (see WP:BLPSOURCES). Does not meet WP:BIO." Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I recently added articles published by the LA Times, Forbes, NY Post, IMDB, USA Today, Daily Mail, Variety, Salt Lake Tribune, San Diego Tribune, KSWB-TV, and I have even more if necessary. Could you please let me know why this article is being reviewed for deletion due to a 'lack of credible sources'? Thank you. Tan (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the references meet the WP:RS threshold and WP:GNG. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 12:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have removed all of the IMDb refs. What's left are a slew of references to a single domestic battery circumstance, and little else. This is looking like it might be a WP:BIO1E situation. In terms of a "body" of work, I don't think she passes WP:NACTOR, as her roles all seem to be "bit parts". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this actually suggests solid independent notability for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to suggest rising to the level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current in all media forms, starring in the blockbuster suicide squad. obviously notable.23.243.49.242 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Referring to someone's assault as a 'battery' (a legal term with a different meaning) with a 'slew' (defined as a violent or uncontrollable sliding movement) of references (referring to publications by LA Times, Forbes, NY Post, IMDB, USA Today, Daily Mail, Variety, Salt Lake Tribune, San Diego Tribune, KSWB-TV) is highly insensitive and quite frankly a poor use of vocabulary considering the disparity between the definitions intended and their true meanings.. As for the "little else" comment, this actor is in the most highly anticipated movie of 2016, Suicide Squad, let alone starring in 9 of 10 episode of the ABC Family's Beverly Hills Nannies (as mentioned on IMDB that you so frivolously deleted). I would hardly call those accomplishments, 'little else' unless it is used to describe the writer's knowledge of the subject at hand. Furthermore, IMDB is not another poster board for people to be able to upload any content they would like, for currently the wait time on an uploaded approval is over 3 years. The comments coming in are hardly those of people who have taken the time to look at the actual body of work listed here but prefer to place put downs insisting that they know the world's largest industry, Entertainment. Referring to the body of work as 'bit parts' when lead roles have been cast in major network television series or suggesting that there is 'no rising to the level of being notable' when a role in the most publicized movie of this year, yet it is still 6 months away which is unheard of this industry, and has articles written in some of the country's largest and most respected publications. These issues I have described clearly shows the lack of integrity and knowledge of the above writers. Therefore, their comments should be disregarded on the basis that they are ignorant of the facts and can easily be disproven by a quick glance over the sources of information in the references. I work in this industry and I can vouch for the talent and work it takes to have a recognizable name. Those who think the line of work in entertainment is easy have obviously never worked hard in their life. That's my 2 cents.Tan (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I've struck through your duplicate vote. If you'd like to make a comment, you can prefix it with '''Comment''', but you should not vote more than once. Second, your comments are bordering on personal attacks. Please do not call people ignorant or insinuate that they are lazy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ignorance is a state of mind, if people choose not to inform themselves and continue to make recommendations then their actions come from ignorance, this is a definition not an insult. Furthermore, laziness generally contributes to ignorance when mixed with self-righteous attitudes but nonetheless it is condition that someone chooses for themselves. If the individuals above took the time to read the article, as I assume NinjaRobotPirate seems to have done, then they would be discussing the same eligibility require that NRB has stated, instead of making quickly dismissible and misleading comments.Tan (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, where to start?... The main point is this: she doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. And her role in Suicide Squad (film) is correctly described as a "bit part" – it's not even a "named" role, and the Wikipedia article I just linked to makes no mention of her. You're then down to just Beverly Hills Nanny, and one "major" role on its own does not clear WP:NACTOR. There is zero justification for Wikipedia to have an article on this person – she simply does meet Wikipedia's notability standards. (P.S. I have no idea what you mean about IMDb having "3 year" waitimes – I'm a contributor over there, and I just added a new title myself within the past month, and it only took a week.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per the IMDB Processing Data Page, I will attest that you were correct and I misread the information. Having said that, I respectfully disagree with your statement that "there is zero justification for Wikipedia to have an article". According to the WP:NACTOR "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". As I previously stated there are articles from LA Times, Forbes, NY Post, IMDB, USA Today, Daily Mail, Variety, Salt Lake Tribune, San Diego Tribune, KSWB-TV, these are verified and reliable publications which meet the requirements in WP:NACTOR. Additionally, the actor has nearly 900,000 fans throughout social media which most certainly accounts for the requirement of having a 'fan base'. Not withholding that the actor is already mentioned in Wiki's article Beverly Hills Nannies. Tan (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my other comments on this page, and as per others such as SwisterTwister. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consistently on television and in the news is by definition "notable". news agencies, tabloids or otherwise, do not take interest in the "not notable".Clintonwallace0813 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMDB does not bill "bit parts" unless specified by the addition of "uncredited". She would have to have a substantial role with a main character to receive the type of credit listed for her on imdb. Between that, a series role on a major television network and the news articles, it's quite obvious (in my opinion) that she is notable and the article should remain in place. Mushu2 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verified blue checkmark on her social media accounts with nearly one million followers.Wikipuffer48 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note:. Mushu2, Wikipuffer88, and Clintonwallace0813 are Confirmed socks of Tannerslaught (signed here as Tan). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tannerslaught.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bit parts and some tabloid-style drama do not make someone notable. Social media followers can be purchased in bulk. The sock puppetry by an editor with an apparent COI pushes me even further toward delete. It's still too soon for an article on this person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few small roles does not make for WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:13, 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 Shrek_on_the_Internet#2012-present:_ShrekChan.2C_.22Shrek_is_love.2C_Shrek_is_life.22. Didn't really need a discussion but redirecting anyway (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek is love Shrek is life[edit]

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

Non-notable meme. I can't find reliable sources. —teb728 t c 07:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found some sourcing and apparently it's sort of used in relation to a Shrek subfandom. It might, might be worth merging somewhere, but that's debatable. I do know that this doesn't pass notability guidelines as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shrek_on_the_Internet#2012-present:_ShrekChan.2C_.22Shrek_is_love.2C_Shrek_is_life.22. This is already covered there fairly well, so there's little need for this to have its own article. We do already have the redirect Shrek is love, Shrek is life, but this could be a valid enough redirect for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect Already present in the Shrek on the Internet article as written above. In addition if you're fooled by the good appearance, know that above editor cleaned up this article with sources from that other article (needless work, though). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Tokyogirl79 - I declined the speedy deletion since it was at least significant enough to have some content written somewhere, but it doesn't demonstrate notability and more fits into an overall internet portrayal of Shrek. (Why am I spending my time on Wikipedia writing about Shrek?) Appable (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shrek on the Internet, not much content here, basically a fork of the latter.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tokyogirl79. Notable enough to warrant mention somewhere in Wikipedia — indeed, it already was mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia — but not notable enough to need its own standalone article as an independent topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 23:56, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Maggie[edit]

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

Unnotable play. No indication of notability via the references provided. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't really consider Broadway World to be a RS myself, but I know that it is used on Wikipedia. (My hesitation comes from the fact that they sell tickets and have job postings.) Assuming that BW is a reliable source, there would be a review and an interview, which would be helpful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Garner[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. -down load 05:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best, questionably enough for the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 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 06:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; couldn't find any coverage worth considering. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:29, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rollercoaster World[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Rollercoaster World" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This is a completely non-notable RollerCoaster Tycoon copycat. Gamerankings and MobyGames found no reliable reviews and/or articles talking about this game, and Google searches proved likewise. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 01:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indifferent to Delete or Keep but there are articles on the game and also not a "copycat" of RollerCoaster Tycoon... it's is part of the Tycoon franchise. Mobygames Link IGN link and there are more... Pmedema (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've might've been misled here. The MobyGames link is a self-released user review and the IGN link reviews a different game that could be also considered similar to Rollercoaster Tycoon, Theme Park Roller Coaster. Also, where is the evidence that saids Rollercoaster World is officially a part of the Rollercoaster Tycoon series and not a rip-off of it? edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 23:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I see a few passing mentions and a lot of directory entries, but nothing substantial. Being a "copycat" is irrelevant for notability. There's some confusion on the name and it seems there are a bunch of very similarly named games. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:47, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saravah Soul[edit]

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

I can find no evidence of notability using Wikipedia:Notability (music). I've looked and can't see any detail suggesting this is a notable group. 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 04:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not enough solidly convincing signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 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 06:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I conducted research but I could not find anything more than a few WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of this group. Unless someone can show me coverage in reliable sources, I am convinced this article does not meet baseline notability requirements. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:25, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Leeman[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Slightly promotional language. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant advert. Created by a single purpose editor of the same name. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 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 06:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is speedy delete material. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 12:45, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Edward Fraser[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:Politician or WP:BIO. Independent candidate, not yet elected to any office, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just the small amount of local coverage that any candidate for national office would receive. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these are admirable goals, but he's not even certain to be on the ballot. Blythwood (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to sources being local, one of the articles is by a national source (Independent Voter Network). In terms of him being a "fringe candidate," an attempt at changing the status quo in a race that is very closely watched by the media should be notable due to the very unique and non-traditional jab at the two-party system. Vote4fraser (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." ... Two articles featuring him were cited. Vote4fraser (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Voter Network is not media, but an organization with which the article subject has a direct affiliation — so it doesn't contribute notability points, because it's PR in a primary source. And the only thing here that actually counts as a newspaper article is blown out of the water by the fact that it's a newspaper article in the local newspaper covering his own hometown, so it constitutes WP:ROUTINE coverage. All candidates for all political offices always get a few articles about them in their local newspaper, so that coverage can't help boost a candidate's notability either. If he somehow reached the point where his candidacy was getting coverage in The New York Times or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or the Miami Herald, then there'd be a case for WP:GNG inclusion because coverage — but a local newspaper covering local politics doesn't get a local candidate over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. And the same rule applies regardless of whether the candidate is a Democrat, a Republican, a Green or an independent, so it's not a bias issue. But the sourcing here is five-sixths primary sources and one-sixth WP:ROUTINE local coverage, of the kind that all candidates always get, in the local media — so it doesn't get him over WP:GNG in lieu of WP:NPOL. No prejudice against recreation if he wins the seat, but until then it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. If this candidate doesn't get elected, then all his notability will be based around one event. To use an example of a candidate who lost in my local area -- Rowenna Davis, then she has survived on Wikipedia because she has published books that have gained her some level of notability. Unfortunately, there is nothing of the sort here. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 10:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN: Notability attaches to office-holders, not those who just run. (And it's worth pointing out that Fraser hasn't even qualified for a ballot yet, let alone won elected office.) No other notability that would qualify under WP:BIO or WP:GNG; I can't find any non-local coverage by sources independent of the subject. --Closeapple (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vote4fraser (talk · contribs) has been blocked because of the username, so can't respond until they make a new username or get their old one changed. I've left a message about Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bill Fraser.jpg on User talk:Vote4fraser in case the account still has access over there. --Closeapple (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the simple reason that insufficient reliable, independent coverage of this man exists to support notability. And he does not pass WP:POLITICIAN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:59, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Pratap Singh[edit]

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

The individual doesn't appear to have been elected to, or held, any political office Uhooep (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As always, candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot provide properly sourced evidence that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate, then they do not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the election. But the sourcing here does not demonstrate that at all — one of the sources is a family genealogy, and the other one is a newspaper article which may as well also be a family genealogy as it mentions several relatives of his but fails to include his name anywhere at all. So WP:GNG has not been met here either — and because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, the fact that he has notable ancestors doesn't get him into Wikipedia in and of itself. And for added bonus, the article has been edited in the past by User:Anil.pratap24 — while WP:COI isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, it really doesn't help the article's case if it's riding alongside other reasons for deletion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed candidates are not notable for that alone except in some very exceptional cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 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 speedy keep. per SK1 - No valid reason has been provided for deletion, As an aside Google News brings up tons of sources. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chittoor Road[edit]

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

WP:Unreferenced, WP:OR Vin09 (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tag it for unreferenced. It seems to be a major and historical road, and is in India. There are lots of articles covering much less significant roads in the U.S. There's no dispute suggested by nom about whether the road exists and is historic and major. It is notable. --do ncr am 08:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Doncram. If sources can be found to back up original research... Dutch Wiki perhaps? Nordic Dragon 08:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one's a slam dunk. paltry state of article merely shows that we need more good edition about the subcontinent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile leisure[edit]

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

This topic is already covered in multiple articles, including:

Housetrucker
Travel trailer
Campervan
Caravan parks
Motorhome
Caravan (Israel)
Jackknifing
Popup camper
Recreational travel
Recreational vehicle
Trailer park
Trailer (vehicle)
Truck camper
Mobile home
Houseboat Magnolia677 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a WP:COATRACK article that starts out like the article discusses the term when it switches and starts promoting "Mobile leisure" as a subject instead of just the term. Makes a mess of the use-mention distinction. Sources online point to company names. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. No need for "local" terms. Nordic Dragon 13:02, 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. As a WP:SOFTDELETE, due to minimal participation despite being relisted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Vaughn[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) As far as his voice acting roles, he had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Doesn't pass actor notability guidelines. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 02:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar 02:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE, unlikely any solid better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm surprised. I would have thought the voice of the killer in Scream (TV series) would have gotten some coverage, but I'm not finding anything. I'm not quite ready to vote "delete", but I can't find anything that would lead me away from this being a proper candidate for deletion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His numerous Mario voicings seem to be reuse of the same audio recorded in October 2009: http://www.mariowiki.com/Mike_Vaughn. There is a source here, however Cloverleaf Radio isn't very notable in itself. I had a hard time finding any news or articles either. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:39, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category 4[edit]

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

We are told specifically not to build dabs from partial title matches because the reader is better served by search results. Nothing is known as only 'Category 4' so there is nothing to disambiguate Legacypac (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See policy WP:NAMELIST where I'm referring to "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference."' If you follow that policy we have empty dabs here. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used as a reference, as explained by Elf, below. Category 4 is a classification, a valid way of naming articles - for example Category:Disability sport classifications where many of the article titles are just the classifications - it's just that the longer titles used in the disambiguation page are more precise. Peter James (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hard to imagine anyone is going to be looking for information on this basis, and there must be an enormous number of topics it could apply to. JMWt (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Category 1 Category 2 Category 3] Category 5 Category One Category Two Category Three Category Four Category Five Legacypac. Category 5 is a legit DAB. The others have the same problems as 4. Legacypac (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep links suggest this has been used for Category 4 hurricanes, and is ambiguous (the Category 4 cable article starts with "Category 4 (Cat 4) is ...". Peter James (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the Cat 4 cable article to say "Catrgory 4 cable..." To match how the other Cat X cable articles start out. Not understanding what you mean about links for hurricanes. Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I go to the search page and search for "category 4", all I get are links to templates and to lists of hurricanes or to specific hurricanes (not to the article that describes category 4 hurricanes, even) and finally to track gauges. Doesn't mention cables at all. I've been in the computer world for a long time, and the number of times that someone has said, "you need category 4" (or sometimes category 4 connector or category 4 ethernet or category 4 wire or various others) makes me certain that others will want to search on that. That's *my* first thought when I hear "category 4". Currently, "category 4 connector" gives me nothing useful, "category 4 ethernet" brings up the Ethernet page at the top of the list, which doesn't discuss categories. "category 4 hurricane" does take me to the correct spot, but "category 4 storm" is not helpful at all, asks whether i really mean "category 4 story". So, if we get rid of this, it makes searches less helpful, not better serving users, and there's no one "category 4 xxx" to which we could redirect and then have a DAB statement at the top that lists all other possible cat 4s. I think that these DABs make Wikipedia better. And I'd guess that people are likely to put in just "category 4", not the whole phrase. I'd vote for adding things to all these Category x dab pages to make them even longer lists, not for getting rid of this. Elf | Talk 17:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 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 // 01:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – these are not "partial title matches". When referring to different contexts, "Category #" is often used standalone. sst✈^(conjugate) 08:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As LegacyPac notes, the Category 5 dab page includes two items specifically named "Category 5", one being an album i think, and is fully "proper" as a dab page. There probably do exist things named exactly "Category 1" or "Category One", and 2 and 3 and 4, which haven't yet been found. These all are useful, good. And handling alternate spellings and very common usages of the imperfect match type is a service. --do ncr am 09:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially per SSTflyer. The dab page provides context to various things often referred to simply as "Category 4". clpo13_(talk) 19:49, 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 List of mayors of San Bernardino, California. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 01:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Bernardino mayoral election, 2017[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Unsourced and non-notable as of yet, if ever. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 00:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to List of mayors of San Bernardino, California. Maybe WP:TOOSOON edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 00:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per above. It's not just that it's too soon; this will never be worthy of a standalone article. Mayor elections in this second-rank city (17th in size in California, 100th in the United States) are simply not notable enough to have a separate article for each election. --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see the argument of WP:TOOSOON, but the page might be notable enough to keep because of the 2015 San Bernardino attack. What do others think? Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP San Bernardino is actually well known, it is the anchor of the 13th largest metropolitan area in the United States, larger than San Diego Melanie. Can the article be expanded upon? Yes. If SB is deleted so should the Atlanta one. James is always looking to delete SB articles instead of helping to expand them. House1090 (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note the Atlanta one includes references and has multiple declared candidates. --do ncr am 09:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of San Bernardino, California. Per WP:CRYSTAL. This article was created with a seeming promotional tone for the incumbent's re-election more than a year and a half in the future. As to the above comment about the 2015 attacks in San Bernardino, that is a different issue not relevant to this. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to expand on my recommendation to redirect. (I lean more toward Delete, but redirects are cheap.) This article contains no references and no information, except the name of the incumbent (three times, just so you don't miss it) and the fact that he is eligible to run for a second term. That's it; that's all there is to say. He hasn't even announced if he will run again. If you Google search for this election, this Wikipedia article is literally the only thing you find; the 2017 election mayoral election in San Bernardino has no other presence anywhere at this time, not even on the city's web page. So there's nothing to expand it with even if we wanted to. BTW, notice that no previous mayoral election in San Bernardino has an article here. There's a good reason for that: the 2013 election got only routine local coverage[27] and that's likely to be the case for the 2017 election as well. San Bernardino may be "well known" but its mayoral elections aren't. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YTView[edit]

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

This article does cite a number of reliable sources that devote space to this website, but they were most likely written on behalf of the PR person for this website who also is probably responsible for this article. Antrocent (♫♬) 00:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry but I do not have any link with the subject, I have been getting information for weeks now, though about doing a WP:DRAFT but decided to post as an article directly since it has reliable sources. Accusing of WP:COI I find it very insulting. OGfromtheGut (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my assessment was incorrect. I often work on building articles of borderline notability and I can recognize and respect skill at squeezing the most out of reliable sources, but I do still favor deletion of this article. Antrocent (♫♬) 09:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a company directory. Merely being (allegedly) connected with something notable does not infer notability. Shritwod (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject has no notability. The Huffington Post source is a blog piece; Wikipedia does NOT accept blogs as reliable sources. The Daily Dot source has a very small mention -- again -- no evidence of notability. I would also like to mention that The Daily Dot news site is borderline acceptable as a reliable source here at Wikipedia. None of the sources/references provided (which are unreliable), are about the subject, they are about the business of fake followers on social media. A small mention on one article does not constitute space for a Wikipedia article. This article is not encyclopedic, and should be removed. Still wondering how it got accepted in the first place.. Scorpion293 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect with/to Viral marketing - per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There does appear to be sources that discuss this company in-depth (I found this one) and its services and impact on social media and popularity (See [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]). I, however, am iffy on whether or not there's enough significant coverage on the company itself in order to warrant its own article, but the coverage on its services and impact on social networking is there and significant. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SBwire, or any "press release" article, is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Also, none of those sources are about the subject, only mere mentions. These news sources would fit perfectly on the Social media marketing article. Like Shritwod mentioned, this is not a company directory.

I'm also beginning to believe there is a WP:COI here with the subject editing his own article, admins need to take a look at this. Scorpion293 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:COI involved, since if it has, I would have clarified it and/or state it.OGfromtheGut (talk) 23:53, 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.