Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 February	15 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 keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Christchurch earthquake[edit]

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

Lack of notability Wykx (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with Mikenorton "This earthquake caused no deaths, injuries or major damage. Comparing it against the earthquake notability guidelines, it's marginal at best." Wykx (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: minor damage with liquefaction and cliffs that collapsed is not common in christchurch--Planecrashexpert (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The lack of significant damage (apart from the cliff fall) and no injuries sustained makes me lean towards deletion (obviously with the salient details captured in the list of earthquakes in New Zealand). Mikenorton (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Earthquakes do not have to cause loss of life to be notable. See 2016 Old Iliamna earthquake for example. While obviously not the most news-grapping earthquake to happen this year it still received significant coverage and caused some damage. Notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the New Zealand earthquake mentioned here did not do as much widespread damage as the 2016 Old Iliamna earthquake, where I believe this article is notable is in the impact the earthquake had on New Zealand's landmass. For example, it caused a noted cliff to collapse. Notable, and worth keeping on Wikipedia. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For some reason, the notability was questioned on the article's talk page immediately before putting it to AfD. There are quite a few editors who have commented on the talk page, but who have not commented here as yet. Schwede 66 18:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Irasnz and Typhoon2013, you are the last two editors who commented on the article's talk page, but have not commented here; you might want to do so. Schwede 66 23:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Regarding the earthquake notability guidelines, it says on that page that it "would normally be expected to match one or preferably more of the criteria listed". The intensity felt in the central city was VIII (the guidelines require VII). It's not magnitude 7.0 (far from it), but it's part of a swarm. Where the notability guidelines are lacking in my opinion is that it doesn't take into account the area affected. It's a sizeable city that is affected, and this impact is something that should also be taken into account. The same earthquake in a part of New Zealand where hardly anybody lives - who cares? There are a lot of people living in the Christchurch (360,000) and that, combined with the fact that this has been going on for five and a half years by now, has caused quite a bit of interest in international media. I've had a look last night and there is a large number of newspapers that didn't just mention this in a couple of lines, but had quite a bit of reporting, and most of them included a photo or two. I shall add the international reaction when I get the time. Schwede 66 18:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: While I agree (as a local) that this article alone is unnecessary, some of this information should be moved to another page. It is nevertheless a reasonably major event in the 2010 aftershock sequence, occurring years after the main event. So far, this aftershock hasn't got even a single mention in the aftershock section of the 2010 Canterbury Earthquake article, when many other ML 5.0+ events with little damage or notability have gained a mention. Alternatively, given there have been other major aftershocks without Wikipedia articles of their own that have either caused major damage or else imperilled lives(I'm thinking Boxing Day 2010, December 23rd 2011, plus possibly this earthquake), how about creating a Wikipedia article on some of these more major aftershocks? (And I apologize for initially posting this in the wrong section.) 125.238.116.151 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for mastering to post something to WP; it must be quite daunting how it all works. You raise the same question that is already on the talk page of the article itself, and that is whether we shouldn't have standalone articles for the Boxing Day earthquake, and the two December 2011 events. I agree that those are notable events and if the community's decision is to keep this article, I'd be happy to work on those other articles. Schwede 66 23:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm borderline. This article Psychological shock follows quake (15 Feb) argues for a psychological link to 2011 Christchurch earthquake (see 2011 Christchurch earthquake#Mental health - A merge to an "aftershocks" section under 2011 Christchurch earthquake would be preferable to deletion. -- Callinus (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the event is significant in itsself for an article given its size, location, and impact. NealeFamily (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the proximity to Christchurch, the magnitude and the MMI is reason enough. ThE~fUtUrE~2014 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: So as I said in the article's talk page, atm I wanted to keep it. I stated: "Despite the article is not at good quality, adding more information and major fixing-ups should already make the article to good. Yes I know that the earthquake is relatively minor, but imo adding this into the List of NZ earthquakes article is great. However, if nothing happens in the future (anything related to this or future "great" earthquakes) and the article is still below the standards, deleting this article is necessary." As of now, I have been updating with Geonet quakes and have measure some moderate earthquakes after February 14 (especially on the 18th), also an article states "because of this, Christchurch might be seeing another great earthquake by next year", so therefore, keep atm. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I stated on the article's talk page: "It could meet the criteria listed in earthquake notability guidelines as it is a) part of "a swarm of events" and b) the intensity was at VII on the Mercalli scale ^[1]. Also, with the 5th anniversary of the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake 8 days after the quake listed in this article, it has a social impact and relevance in that regard. In addition, the June 2011 Christchurch earthquake is a part of the same swarm and only one person died (an elderly man who fell over) as a result but it has its own article. Then again, the December 2011 Christchurch earthquake redirects to the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake despite two (if not more) of the quakes on that day also met the intensity requirement (albeit with no deaths I am aware of) ^[2] ^[3]. So maybe some consistency needs to applied with which of these articles stays or goes, as, in my mind, they are all significant parts of the "swarm" we are experiencing here." --IrasNZ (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Class VIII earthquakes are notable. James500 (talk) 09:08, 22 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 all. WP:SNOW applies here. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Al-Ahsaei[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The Saudi Professional League is considered professional at WP:FPL. If sources can be given showing that the subjects of the areticles played a game, than the articles should be kept. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but that's the point of this AfD, although the players might be registered with an FPL club, there is no indication that they have actually played yet, thereby failing both GNG and the subject-specific guidelines. Fenix down (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind then, from the nominator's rational I misunderstood the reasoning. I have now changed my vote to Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as mentioned, currently questionable for the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - very clear GNG failure Spiderone 11:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as failing the relevant guidelines for notability. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nomination. No indication of notability. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 22:44, 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Beach[edit]

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

Per WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. While I am nominating this for possible deletion, I do so with some reservations and would be interested in feedback from the community. The subject appears to be a band of very limited notoriety that were it not for the tragic circumstances of their deaths coupled with a very slow news cycle for the British press would likely not rate any notice on these pages. That said the band IS getting a lot of post mortem attention including front page coverage in some of the tabloids. And yes there have been cases of obvious 1E subjects (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) where 1E got chucked by community acclamation. I am not convinced this band rises to that level. That said, this is not the strongest Delete !vote I have ever cast and will happily bow to consensus if the community thinks that this merits inclusion. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure of the policy, but 5 Britain's killed in a single event would make the UK news, regardless of the slowness or otherwise of the "news cycle" - whatever that is. Leaky Caldron 19:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Patently meets general requirements for inclusion. Google news currently has over 450 articles about the crash. And it's not just from the British Press, but also from France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, the United States [1][2][3], Australia. You get the idea. In any case, the band probably met the notability requirements even before the crash.[4][5][6]. See the article's talk page for more examples. Cmeiqnj (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about the level of coverage is not a light one. That said your comment ignores 1E and NOTNEWS completely. And it is worth remembering that WP:NOT is WP:POLICY and trumps the guidelines, including GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "routine news reporting". Lapadite (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are not notable for only one event. They were already notable in their own right. From WP:1E: "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." Seems relevant. Cmeiqnj (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this Viola Beach page should probably stay, as it will likely also be relevant to several related, and admittedly morbid, categories - musicians that died young, britons that died abroad, and those that died in car incidents involving bridges. Waynehfitzgerald (talk

Comment: A secondary source of notability could possibly lay in the fact that serious accidents in Europe & elsewhere involving vertical-lift bridges, fatal or otherwise, don't seem to be that common these days, or so it seems with a quick search (MS Windoc of course being one of the exceptions). Keep by the way. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They currently have two songs in the UK iTunes top 40, one in the top ten, and will most likely appear on the official top 100 at the end of the week. Appearing in a chart is one criterion for notability and it is likely to apply to them soon. YuckieDuck (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am not seeing where any of that falls under the notability guidelines or answers 1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Could you provide a link? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

The above comment was intenderd for the comment by Ceannlann gorm and was misplaced. Apologies for the confusion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (music): "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Of course, there is the word "may", but still this appears to make them at least somewhat notable. YuckieDuck (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep currently #7 and #33 in the UK iTunes charts (http://kworb.net/popuk/) -- Dschungelfan (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that meets the criteria in WP:CHART. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. 7 in iTunes will most likely lead to a position in the official charts on Friday. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - would have met criteria for inclusion even before recent deaths. fish&karate 20:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How so? That is a serious question, not rhetorical. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a freak accident in a country generally notable for its efficiency and safety (well perhaps not in more recent times), as @Ceannlann gorm: explained above.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 20:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - It seems like they were on their way up. Even if they weren't, the incident would merit an article and could be renamed. Deb (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As with Deb. Even if there is no staying power in the future with their recordings (I would be amazed however if they don't posthumously chart), there is the angle that this was a road accident with five fatalities in one of the most advanced and efficient countries in the world. A grim parallel to the German train tragedy '''tAD''' (talk) 20:55, 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 Snow Keep. Article's been improved since nomination so obivous keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trefor Richard Morgan[edit]

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

Article has only one source, and a quick web search throws up nothing else. The article appears copied more or less straight from the single source. The subject's political activities are not notable. His business activities may be if there were sources available, which there appear not to be. Frinton100 (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added several further references. I think he passes WP:GNG. Sources show that he was involved with some formative political activities in Wales and that he also set up a charity and an educational institution. Given that he died in 1970, there may be more coverage in print than can easily be found during a quick web search. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main source is from the Dictionary of Welsh Biography. The dictionary is for "Welsh people who have made a significant contribution to national life, whether in Wales or more widely." It should be noted that the subject had sufficient notability to merit a place. That alone ought to satisfy notability on wikipedia. With regard to the other on-line sources, I think it can be more helpful for editors to do more than a "quick web search" before proposing an AfD. Graemp (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His political activities do make him notable, as this was during the formative years of Welsh nationalism and his failure to be elected was par for the course. Any person who is named in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography are notable, we have just lost context in our modern age. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD has provoked sufficient sourcing, although NOM ought to have looked more carefully before bringing this to AFD as per WP:BEFORE. Old-time nationalists tend to have sourcing, as a quick search of books [7] shows that this one has.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 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) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ಮುನೀರ್ ಕಾಟಿಪಳ್ಳ[edit]

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

The article is in Kannada. It was deleted two days ago through WP:PROD after having been listed for two weeks at WP:Pages needing translation into English with no translation having occurred. Its time remains up. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PNT. The article was recreated two days after being deleted via WP:PROD. clpo13_(talk) 19:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy. This article meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under WP:G4 as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion (or in this case a PROD), is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, turns out this article isn't eligible under this criteria. In any case, a simply Delete anyway as an article that was deleted, then recreated without addressing the issues that caused it to be deleted. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Leaving aside the question of repeated posting of non-English material to this Wikipedia, this appears to be a biography whose only reliable source is a brief piece on the subject participating in a sit-down protest. A search on Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is not turning up anything substantial, and my opinion is that a state presidency position in the Democratic Youth Federation of India does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria or broader WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was copied and pasted from User:Janapara/sandbox, so I performed a histmerge without redirect. De728631 (talk) 18:41, 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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renault RE16 Turbo[edit]

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

Nothing but a list of technical specifications. No context provided. No claim of notability. Not very notable anyway. T v x1 18:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing particularly notable about this engine, it isn't as if every engine every manufacturer ever produces for F1 is listed. Shritwod (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this engine is notable, and it's unlikely there ever will be as individual F1 engines very rarely receive significant attention. QueenCake (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator and previous commenters. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting discussions aren't votings. Contributions that don't contain any reasoned arguments are likely to be discarded by the reviewer. T v x1 10:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everything was covered by you and the two previous commenters, so there was nothing I needed to add except my agreement. Nothing in the guidelines discourages such comments, only those that simply say "Keep" or "Delete" with no further content or reasoning. I'm well aware of how AfD works, as I've participated (successfully, at that) in these discussions before. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:46, 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. And will salt both versions of the name. MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aghajan Petrosyan[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:NMODEL or WP:BIO. Article was speedy deleted twice in the last two weeks, after creation by User:GeghamAyvazyan, who has since been blocked for sockpuppetry: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InnaBeglaryan/Archive. This time the article was created as Petrosyan Aghajan. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've also nominated it myself as this is questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional. Unless he really is deputy chief at the Armenian State Judicial Department which somehow I doubt. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:51, 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. WP:SNOW applies as well as the arguments given below. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Muslim Party[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not meet WP:ORG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable organisation. It has no registration as a political party according the Australian Electoral Commission [8] and besides the media running off with their launch story has no other mentions. Aeonx (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet even amassed the relatively paltry amount of signatures to be registered for election. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this new political party got a flurry of publicity the day after it was founded last November, so it is sort of like WP:1E, it was founded, people noticed. But until it wins elections, or gains ongoing attention of some sort, it lacks notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-registered party that has yet to receive enough reliable outside coverage to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. No prejudice against re-creation/restoration if there is discernible increase in RS coverage.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least for now, as non-notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, our usual standard is official registration somewhere, plus sustained media coverage that meets the WP:GNG. This party doesn't have either, yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny Wrestling Organization[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 13:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three sources (facebook, twitter and youtube) I don't see reliable sources talking about the promotion. No notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all arguments already made. MPJ -US 11:36, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siena Root[edit]

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

This is an article about non-notable band that fails both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. It originally had one source, the band's web page when I added a prod template. The article's creator, Dfisek, added three sources and removed the prod. None of the three sources are reliable sources and they were simply placed at the end of sentences without any other changes to the article. Aspects (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The AllMusic page, the Progarchives, the Magnificent Music together meet notability requirements, and when combined with the articles found on GoogleNews, more than meet notability requirements (WP:GNG and WP:BAND). Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Of the sources cited in the article, only Allmusic is reliable, but there does seem to be more coverage around. --Michig (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 13:42, 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 Procedural close. Already deleted at 15:32, on 14 February 2016 by RHaworth (talk · contribs) (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to Build Your Facebook Page Likes With Facebook Ads[edit]

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

Move to the Facebook wikia. 333 -blue 13:28, 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 withdrawn Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Lumberyard[edit]

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

Unnotable video game. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It's not even a video game. It's a game engine. You might want to check the actual articles and sources present before going on a deletion spree. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The1337gamer: Oopsies! Sorry about that. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:54, 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. Could be recreated if new or better sources appear. MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sol 0[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Sol 0" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Possibly too soon for an article. No indication of notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of pretty much all the article's (small) content, I'm going to TRY not to be biased and use logic, rather than emotion, to defend it. Please bear with me.

This is the first article I have created, so I read through various policies, and concluded that Sol 0 just barely met the criteria for inclusion. In my opinion, "just barely enough" is enough, and as time goes on it will increase in notability (or at the very least, its notability will not decrease).

I hadn't seen the TOOSOON criteria before, but I read through the film section (it's the nearest to a video game in there). I'm not sure if most films on Wikipedia would actually meet any of the "Attributes to consider"!

Sol 0 has been released and sold around 15,000 copies as of 14 February 2016, so it's not too soon in that respect, but I accept that there has been little media coverage of the game as yet. I have found a couple of pre-release reviews, and have added them to the article.

I would prefer to let the article stand for a while. Having been properly released only a few weeks ago, I expect reviews to turn up shortly. Awards or nominations will, obviously, take a bit longer, but I believe Sol 0 will eventually become at least 20%^[4] as notable as Braid. Cosmogoblin (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.geonet.org.nz/quakes/region/newzealand/2016p118944
^ http://www.geonet.org.nz/quakes/region/newzealand/3631359
^ http://www.geonet.org.nz/quakes/region/newzealand/3631380
^ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Arbitrary+Statistics

Comment There seems to be much less buzz about it now than there was a year ago when it wasn't being sold. I could find preview articles from then, but from this year I can't find any articles nor even reviews. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON for a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. We create article after they become notable, not before, regardless of release dates, sales numbers or popularity. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, might be WP:TOOSOON. 16,000 copies sold is not an indicator of notability. Being "at least 20% as notable as Braid" is WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:CRYSTAL. --Soetermans. T / C 14:13, 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. Following deletion I will redirect it to Gawker Media which already has content about it. MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jalopnik[edit]

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

The article is almost entirely a synthesis of primary sources; no indication that significant coverage in secondary sources exists. I had redirected it to parent organization Gawker Media but was reverted without either explanation or improvement. Bringing it here per WP:BLAR. Huon (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read Jalopnik. I would be tempted to Merge it into a single line as part of Gawker Media. The irony is that whereas the rest of Gawker's sites are nasty, and justify individual coverage on account of their controversies, Jalopnik is nice and consequently non-notable. The same is true of e.g. Foxtrot Alpha, Black Flag and the other sub-sites. On a wider level this is probably why Gawker has so much negative press - nobody writes about the good bits. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to purge all content then Merge, if you look at the Google News, all of the links are to do with Jalopnik as a source. Also I do not see any source indicating that they are notable on it's own. Donnie Park (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next question is, if this article was deleted in 2006, how was this allowed to reemerge. Donnie Park (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gawker Media per Ashley. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 21:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Gawker Media, keeping significant sentences. Nordic Dragon 10:29, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Dahlberg[edit]

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

Can't see how the article passes WP:GNG. Dahlberg's channels combined totals around 13 million subscribers. But, he is hardly notable as anything else other than a YouTube celebrity. Wikipedia does not grant automatic articles for every single YouTube celebrity with many subscribers, or someone who is somewhat of a figure to a single game, not to mention the number of subscribers a YouTube channel has absolutely nothing to do with anything either. When searched up to find detailed coverage in reliable, independent sources, the best things I can find are things about his recent anime voice role casting and collaboration for a anti-smoking campaign done two years ago, but nothing else related directly about him as a subject. The article contains info about Dahlberg's YouTube content and multiple Minecraft series that follow WP:OR. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 07:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through WP:VG/RS's custom Google search engine, the only mention of Dahlberg is about his involvement in the Machinima scandal. Not notable by himself. --Soetermans. T / C 12:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no signs of better satisfying the applicable entertainers notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Union (TPP)[edit]

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

Article on a theory that the states that form the Trans-Pacific Partnership may unite further. Fails WP:FUTURE, only citation is to WorldNetDaily. Blythwood (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything about the TPP one but I were instantly hit with articles about the Australian one: Pacific Union. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious delete. A speculative article on a conspiracy site is hardly evidence of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject dosen't come close to meeting the standards of WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ATM (2015 film)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no sources cited. This would be a speedy deletion candidate except that we have no CSD criteria for films. Hard to find sources for this, I see trivial mentions, directory listings, maybe a review or two but can't tell if the reviews are from notable reviewers. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are proofs that this movie had a general release in Kerala on 4th December 2015 (such as this). So it's notable, like any other "commercial" Malayalam movie. Furthermore, any Jackie Shroff movie that has hit theaters is also notable. Biwom (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

some due diligence:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "ATM Movie" "Jespal Shanmughan" "Jackie Shroff" "Bhagath Manuel" "Any Time Money"

Strong keep and tag for improvements. Sorry nominator, but as frustrating as it maybe for some to find an unsourced article, topic notability is based upon sources being available and not upon their not being used. Simply being unsourced is a reason to fix it yes, but is not a deletion rationale. As there are sources and reviews for this released film,[9][10][11][12][13][14] it's time to fix, not delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I did look for sources, but was unable to determine if they were meaningful for establishing notability. I am withdrawing this nomination. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aminata Diakité[edit]

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

lack of notability. Haptokar (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was expecting to vote keep on this one, but I can't find any reliable sources whatsoever apart from those cited here, which are too weak on their own; all the non-English news coverage clearly relates to other people of the same name. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I were able to find a few articles about a Malian politician who has the exact same name, but only risque pictures about the model. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; couldn't find decent coverage. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:49, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Capone (linguist)[edit]

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

Previously deleted via AfD over five years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Capone (linguist). I would normally just tag this for G4, but the passage of time makes me wonder if something is different. ~~I don't personally have an opinion on whether this should be deleted or kept, but~~ (see below) I think the question of whether Capone passes WP:PROF in 2016 ought to be discussed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he's an editor-in-chief of the Springer Series Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy, and Psychology. Frankly, I don't really know what this entails but it seems fairly close in spirit, if not in word, to criterion 8 of WP:NACADEMICS: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". So until someone proves this wrong, I'd say ~~keep~~. Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Springer Series" means a series of books rather than a journal, with each book usually being an edited collection of essays (but edited by an individual selected for that particular book in the series, rather than by the series editor). I agree it's close to the spirit of NACADEMICS, but with the sheer number of these series that Springer publishes... I'm not sure if we can say just how "major" or "well-established" any particular one is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, now that I look at it, it just seems that Capone is one of three editors (he's just the first named) of a few anthologies which are published under a Springer Series. The copyright pages of those books don't call Capone an EIC or head editor, and to my understanding, editing a textbook or essay collection is quite a different distinction from being EIC of a major, well-established academic journal in any subject area. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - One last note: This Springer Series was established in 2013 and has put out 7 volumes. Whether that meets "major" or "well-established" is going to need to be evaluated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I guess his notability has yet to be established. Uanfala (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 13 is rather weak and I find too many self-citations to pass WP:Prof#C1. Many of his publications are in journals whose editorial boards he serves on, some are not attributed at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the discussion thus far, I've struck my note in the OP that I don't have an opinion on deletion: This article should be deleted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been five years since the previous AfD but his Google scholar citation record is still too anemic for WP:PROF#C1. And I don't think that co-editor of a book series and editor-in-chief of a major journal are enough the same thing for him to squeak by that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:22, 21 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) 01:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Americans[edit]

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

PROD remained in place for seven days but IP removed it before an administrator got to it. Subject fails WP:GNG, achieved nothing of note. LM2000 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable third party sources other than WP:ROUTINE match results. Nikki♥311 09:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a section in their main articles, no need for a separate article that will just attract an overabundance of insignificant info. MPJ -US 11:37, 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 08:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Thompson (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Candidate in the Alberta general election, 2015. The seat was won by Lorne Dach Uhooep (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails our notability guideline for politicians as an unelected provincial legislative candidate who finished in third place. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A third-place candidate and electronics store manger is definitely not notable. Graham (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that they were already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independently of their candidacy, then they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the election. And for added bonus, the article was created by User:ThompsonAlberta, an evident WP:COI, and is sourced entirely to primary sources except for a single deadlinked "ridings to watch" blurb in the newspaper — which is not enough coverage to claim WP:GNG instead. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not better notable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Close[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG giso6150 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Financial Times paywall prevents me seeing the extent to which their 2012 article referenced in the article is about the man or the firm for which he works. There are a couple of industry press pieces: Business Matters 2012,HRzone 2012 which replay standard lines about employee engagement, but I am not seeing any evidence which lifts this from a standard man-with-a-job CV to indicate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, still not enough convincing overall for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. He's not as important as he, or the creator of this article, think he is. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia Deli[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There's no credible indication of notability here. We have a couple of directory entries/PR pieces ([15], [16], [17]), a couple of magazine covers repeated across a few sites ([18], [19], [20], [21]), and a gossip rag interview. What we don't have is any indication the subject meets WP:ENT, or WP:BIO ("significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"). - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article because there were already articles for Deli in other languages, in German and Russian. I was not aware that this article was previously deleted or what the deleted article looked like, but I understand that it was deleted for copyright violations (WP:CV) therefore the new article I started has nothing to do with it.

Soon after I created this article, User: Biruitorul added a tag to it for speedy deletion.

Admin Boing! said Zebedee checked the article and removed the speedy deletion tag because as he said "Previous deletion was for copyright violation, but this version is different".

After that Biruitorul added yet another tag, this time for deletion. It appears that Biruitorul wants this article deleted at all costs for his own reasons.

~~The article was reviewed by Danielklotz and passed, which means that the article is:~~

In New pages feed there is a green tick on the left of the title (Xenia Deli) which indicates to me that this article looks okay. Then comparing Article namespace checklist at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Article namespace checklist it looks to me that the article is:

Referenced (8 References)
Categorized (6 Categories)
Other articles link to this article (three links: Xenia (name)‎, List of Victoria's Secret models and What Do You Mean?)
There are versions of the article in other languages (in German and Russian)
The article is properly formatted
The article does not include libellous material

Reply: You have mischaracterized the meaning of my act of marking the article as "patrolled." None of your bullet points are correct about the meaning of my action. See Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#The_purpose_of_new_pages_patrol: "The primary purposes of new page patrolling are to identify articles which do not meet the criteria for inclusion and/or to tag them for any glaring issues that need attention. Most critical are copyright violations and defamatory material about living persons." By the time I patrolled this article, it had already been appropriately tagged for possible deletion by User:Biruitorul. In other words, making a page "patrolled" does not mean that it is in any way valid. Instead, it merely means that the page has been adequately reviewed and tagged. In this particular case, what my action of marking this page "patrolled" meant was, "Yep, this new article has been seen by other editors and is in the process toward deletion." Deletion seemed to me the correct way to go, and I favor the nomination to delete this article. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 14:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my misunderstanding, but in my "alerts" I did get a message saying that "The page Xenia Deli was reviewed by DanielKlotz". I have now rephrased the above accordingly. Please let me know if this is okay with you.

In the meantime the article Xenia Deli has changed considerably. I would appreciate it if you could take another look at it and let me know your opinion. --Odysses (○) 18:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the good-faith effort you have put into this article and the good nature you've shown in this discussion. I'm ok with this article staying now. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 23:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The German version in comparison has only two (2) references, whereas the English has eight (8) references. I have included reliable sources such as Fashion model directory and Victoria's Secret models. Both are included in the German and Russian versions and (despite Biruitorul's claims) they are acceptable standard reference for biographies of models, for example: Ex. 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3, Ex. 4, and so are the fashion magazines.

I have avoided to include references such as Instagram and Twitter since I don't considered them to be reliable sources.

The article on Deli has just started, I think it has the potential to expand and improve, so I don't see any reasons to delete. Any recommendations to improve it are welcomed. --Odysses (○) 14:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the subject clearly fails to meet WP:ENT. More fundamentally there's a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The only source of any value is the Cosmopolitanm article, and you can't hang an entire article on that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article is hugely improved and so I am happy to change my !vote. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, Deli is a model, not an actress. The "Basic criteria" according to WP:NMODEL "to be notable having received significant coverage in multiple published media" is, as the article states, that she signed to Elite Model Management (as well as other agencies) and she has been seen by thousands of readers in magazines and relevant fashion publications mostly in US, but also all over the world. The article does not include the multitude of all those magazines. I take it that you are not a regular reader of fashion magazines, therefore not familiar with fashion modelling. Likewise, most models in this list (that also includes Deli), do have already their own page in WP, which means that they do meet the above criteria, and so does this article. Second but not least, she has "a large fan base". This is subjective and can only be seen from the vast number of followers in Tweeter, Instagram, Facebook etc. that is not included in the article. --Odysses (○) 18:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that WP:NMODEL links to precisely the same text as WP:ENT your whole argument is radically misonceived. However if she has received significant coverage in mutiple published media then you will be able to demonstrate this by the addition of suitable references, which so far you have clearly failed to do. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Yes, both WP:ENT and WP:NMODEL links to the same page – no argument on this. And this (same) page provides the Basic criteria I describe above. --Odysses (○) 20:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, I see that you have created biography articles of physicists and other academics. Please bear in mind that references to academics are somewhat different than references to fashion models when it comes to writing a biography article. Here are some examples of other models refs: Ex. 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3, Ex. 4. --Odysses (○) 21:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making my point for me. Example 1 is sourced to The Times, BBC News and New York Magazine. Example 2 is sourced to The Financial Times and the The New York Post. Example 3 is sourced to New York Magazine but is correctly tagged as lacking adequate reliable sources. Example 4 should be tagged in the same way as example 3. Your time would be more usefully spent locating and adding reliable sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive and constructive feedback. Following your advise I intend to add sources from New York Magazine, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror (web edition) International Business Times and Harper's Bazaar. Are they all reliable? --Odysses (○) 12:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the criteria for notability for models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the notability of this article, we have already discussed the subject extensively in the previous passages of this page and it appears that this article has been improved considerably since it was nominated for deletion and it now satisfies the notability criteria. If you disagree, could you indicate the specific points of your disagreement, either from the above discussion regarding notability or from the General notability guideline? This could also help to keep and improve the article. --Odysses (○) 19:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy perhaps as this is still questionable for WP:CREATIVE and questionable how deep the coverage is particularly for her own notability. At best, I would also go as far as a weak keep. Notifying 1st AfDer JMHamo. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "weak keep". The article started on 27 January, only two weeks ago as a stub page, and after two weeks it has grown and improved to start class or higher. If the article is kept, it will grow and improve by other editors. Only yesterday User:Parkwells did a great editing job to upgrade the standards of this article. This wouldn't have happened if the article was userfied. --Odysses (○) 18:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps The subject seems to have ample coverage in both print and on the internet. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 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 redirect to Justin Vernon. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hazeltons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reopening due to no other participants in the last discussion, but the notability problems I addressed last time still remain. See the last discussion for the reasons on why I've nominated this. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 17:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as none of this suggests better applocable notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Justin Vernon. I can't find sufficient evidence the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:19, 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 02:25, 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 delete. America's Test Kitchen is not what he's known for by a massive margin, so it would be confusing to redirect there. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ried[edit]

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

I'm not sure what a "keeper of the Equipment Corner" on a television program does but if it is the primary occupation of Ried, I don't believe this makes him notable. It appears that his biggest accomplishment was that his book Thoroughly Modern Milkshakes won an award but I don't think this meets GNG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find sources that would suggest the subject meets the general notability guideline. Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. Moreover, the creator blanked the page, which implies a request for speedy deletion. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best and delete only if needed as he is actually one of the main cast members of the show. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 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 02:18, 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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Md Aliul Islam[edit]

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

Multiple archers not notable. Only claim to fame is attendance at a single world archery championship - archers have not been reported through multiple sources, and otherwise show no inkling of notability besides the one event (which did not have Olympic-like entry criteria). Aeonx (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same lack of notability:

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

Keep: As you can see at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) all Olympic sports that have esablished notability guideliness, have athletes at the World Championships as general notible. As archery don't have notability guideliness it's not stated explicit here. Apart from the Olympics, this is the most important competition for archers. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The 2015 world championships are covered worldwide. In the Netherlands where I live, it was in the main national source NOS broadly covered and broadcasted (so it would have been the same in other countries). A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4.

These cover the event and finalists, but not the other participants above. Are there any reliable news sources that cover the individuals and can verify their notability in participating in the event? Aeonx (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: you say claim to fame is attendance at a single world archery championship. From these few archers Ram Krishna Saha participated at several world championships. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple reliable references noted in the article that reports their participation at more than 1 world class event, that would probably be acceptable. Aeonx (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep perhaps as this may be enough and, if not, I would've suggested redirecting to one of the two other targets where this subject is mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 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 merge to Uiju County. Near-unanimous consensus that this should not be a stand-alone article. Less clear between delete and merge camps. Going with merge because there's a slight numerical tilt in that direction, plus WP:PRESERVE. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Uiju earthquake[edit]

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

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

No injuries, deaths, or significant damage. Lack of scientific interest (and/or an absence of information from the world's most secretive nation).

Dawnseeker2000 22:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Curro2 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Improper application of WP:EVENT, earthquake occurred in a region not known for seismic activity. Earthquake occurred in North Korea and is the largest earthquake in this region's recorded history. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – While not known for being very active seismically, there have been larger events that have caused damage and deaths, and since there is no evidence that there were any consequences of the Uiju event, we don't need it. Dawnseeker2000 01:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Has there been? Please provide sources, I provided reliable sources saying this is a the largest earthquake in the region. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stay on track here – this debate is about this non-notable earthquake. Dawnseeker2000 03:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious, you said there have been bigger earthquakes and this is not notable. I provided sources saying this is the largest and therefore notable. How I am not on track? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're on defense. Please defend this article. Dawnseeker2000 04:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This event is not notable. The mistake that was made here was in the choice of newspapers as the final word on this being the largest event in North Korea, but even if this was the largest event, it still wouldn't be notable because there is no claim of damage, injuries, or deaths —it is not meaningful that this was the "largest event in North Korea since official observation began by South Korea".

So, what's happened here is that the creator of the article hasn't adequately-defended the article. The fact that there are larger earthquakes in the North Korea region is irrelevant to this discussion. I only brought it to help them understand that this one does not stand out. I did not realize it would become the focus of their attention—so much so that they would neglect the reason why we are here. So, to state the facts again as I see it: Wikipedia does not need articles like this. The event doesn't qualify for a stand-alone article or as an entry on one of our list articles. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 16:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have brought no policy based rationale for deletion. The fact that you claim there are larger earthquakes without sources suggest possible bias. I've provide sources which suggest this is one of the few documented earthquakes in Korea. I don't see any deletion rationale looking for "injuries, deaths, or significant damage" in fact sources are provide to determine if the earthquake is run of the mill or not. This is earthquake is no less notable than 2011 Virginia earthquake which also did not have significant damage or injuries. The location and coverage is what gives both earthquakes notability. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

Sorry Valoem, I think I may have left some things out and I also might not have been as clear as I could. I'm going to add a little detail and background and that may help a little bit. First, let me say that I enjoy writing about earthquakes and I have written about a number of events that have occurred in diverse places. If there were enough adequate and appropriate source to expand the Uiji article, I would consider doing it.

I created a table to show some of the differences between the 2011 Virginia and the Uiji earthquakes. I think this will help show that they're not on equal ground. The main thing to consider, and that I mentioned at the very top of this deletion request, is significant coverage. As it stands, the Uiji article has two newspaper sources. By themselves, I would consider these inappropriate and flimsy for an earthquake article. If there were scientific interest in this event, that would qualify it for us to consider writing an article about it, but we usually would need a handful of journal articles to create a meaningful article. It can be done with less, but it's not an ideal situation.

**Comparison**
	1980 Uiju	2011 Virginia
Magnitude	5.3 ?	5.8 M_w
Intensity	?	VII (Very strong)
Deaths	?	No
Injuries	?	No
Damage	?	Moderate
Type	?	Oblique-slip
Unusually large?	No	No
Mainstream coverage	Yes	Yes
Scientific coverage	No	IRIS Consortium American Geophysical Union Seismological Society of America Geological Society of America
Peak ground acceleration	?	.26
WikiProject Earthquakes notability guidelines

Dawnseeker2000 19:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing that chart I am glad to see you are interested in earthquake activity. This earthquake occurred in an area with low coverage and population, but as the article suggests should cause Korea consider for future earthquakes. Coverage received in North Korea is not going to match Continental United States, ~~you have provided sources showing scientific interest in this earthquake~~ and it does appear to pass WP:EARTHQUAKEGNG

~~Of scientific interest - discussed in the scientific press at the time and in papers published afterwards~~
Unusually large events in areas of low seismicity - the 'largest earthquake since 1992' doesn't make it notable but the 'largest event since records began' probably does, as long as the area is large enough (i.e.countries rather than counties)

I hope you reconsider. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the table has only solidified my position. As it stands, the event doesn't appear to be noteworthy. The article does not really say anything. I struck your comments because there is no scientific interest in the event. I placed the comments in the wrong column and they were there for about twenty minutes before I corrected it. Dawnseeker2000 21:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No there are clearly sources here [22] and here [23] which shows this clearly passes GNG for earthquakes. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, those don't change a thing. Dawnseeker2000 23:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Uiju County. The attitudes of both the editors above seem just a bit too absolutist. Korea and England seem to have similar levels of earthquake activity, and the magnitude of this earthquake was apparently slightly higher than that of the 2008 Lincolnshire earthquake, whose article WP:WikiProject Earthquakes seems perfectly willing to countenance. It looks at least moderately likely that the main difference between the two earthquakes is the differing depths of coverage, largely in mainstream media though partly in fairly standard scientific reports, easily available (particularly to English-speakers) about a 2008 earthquake in England as against a 1980 earthquake in North Korea. Having said that, when it comes to standalone articles, depth of coverage is one of the things that WP:GNG is about - and, while User:Valoem's sources look reliable enough, each amounts to a passing mention giving the magnitude and epicentre of the earthquake and that it is the largest since South Korean records began, just two years before the earthquake. The last fact certainly means that the earthquake continues getting regular, if brief, mentions and should be covered on Wikipedia (particularly since a Google search suggests that it is also larger than any earthquake in Korea between 1905 and 1945, while the Japanese occupied Korea and apparently kept records). Ideally, this would be a sentence or two in Geology of Korea - but that article does not exist. However, a mention in the article on its location looks like an acceptable alternative. PWilkinson (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not do that either, because all we would be saying is that an earthquake happened, and that by itself is not really encyclopedic. The sources that have been presented don't say anything substantive and it seems like there's a bit of desperation to get deficient material into the encyclopedia. We should just forget about this thing and be done with it. Dawnseeker2000 21:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: If an article is present on WP, it doesn't necessarily mean that each associated WikiProject has acknowledged it as indispensable or mandatory. Most WikiProjects are loosely organized with minimal coordination and cooperation. This is probably because there's an incredible amount of work that can go into coordinating work and managing the articles. It can be overwhelming, even for a person that's willing to contribute massive amounts of time, and prioritizing activities comes into play. At the moment, my list of (earthquake) articles that I'm thinking about submitting for deletion contains 18 items. Dawnseeker2000 02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the strongest earthquake South Korea has ever measured in their "homeland". It's not important to us but it's important to them thus it's a sidenote in the county article to us. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final statemewnt

Alright, I know that there has been a good amount of discussion and participation on this, but I want to post one more time to improve on what I've been trying to say. Wikipedia is well past its infancy, and now that we have millions of articles, we need to start focusing on quality and less on quantity. WP:Earthquakes has articles on about 800 events. I have worked on many of them and it's clear to me that this one does not qualify to have its own article or an entry on a list. Some of our articles are quite polished and readable but many are not, and what we don't need at this point are more articles that can't be expanded into something that's reasonably descriptive. The sources are inadequate and there's nothing that's known about it, but if there were adequate sources and there was something to say, I would write the article myself. Dawnseeker2000 23:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If this gets deleted then someone could still add a note of the earthquake to the Uiju County as a minor sidenote. In fact I just did it. It was a massive 700 characters worth. Why is this even a matter of debate when it's so inconsequential... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I'd like to point out that the article for the county had the stub tag. This is a win-win scenario. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entry.
The reason we don't need to add the EQ to that article is because it was a non-event. This is an encyclopedia and we don't mention things that aren't noteworthy. Think about it taking that course of action a little further. If we were to add a note about every non-notable earthquake, our articles would be literally littered with inconsequential tidbits like that. I don't think it's the way to go. Dawnseeker2000 16:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're not really dealing with this in terms of what's notable to Koreans but what's notable to earthquake enthusiasts like yourself. Like I wrote above: "It's the strongest earthquake South Korea has ever measured in their "homeland". It's not important to us but it's important to them thus it's a sidenote in the county article to us." --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the strongest earthquake in North Korea. And why would it be notable to North Korean's if nothing really happened? Let me answer that. It's not a notable earthquake in the North Korea area because there were no consequences. Put another way: there are notable earthquakes in the North Korea area, but this is not one of them. Dawnseeker2000 20:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the strongest measured. Here you have some Korean wikis: 1 and 2. Our Uiju being the biggest and most notable... Here are some articles which mention the earthquake: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. In fact there were too many... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List

Number 1 – This is the Korean WP. Can't use it as a source. My guess is that they would list just about any old earthquake. On the English WP we're not doing that.
Number 2 – (koreanlii.or.kr/w/index.php/Earthquake) is a Wiki and is not considered reliable
Number 1 – (yonhapnews.co.kr) is not considered a reliable source for earthquakes (it's just briefly mentioned with no detail)
Number 2 – (http://scienceon.hani.co.kr) I don't know what this website is, but it only briefly mentions the event but doesn't have any detail on it)
Number 3 – The Korea Times – Again, this is a newspaper. Not a good source for "largest" and not the most reliable source for earthquake details.
Number 4 – (http://necis.kma.go.kr/) – I don't see anything that would support an earthquake article
Number 5 – Radio Free Asia is not considered the most reliable source for earthquake details, but at least the article mentions the larger event.
Number 6 – KBS News 9 is not considered a reliable source for earthquake details. Another brief mention. I would never use a source like this.
Number 7 – The Korea Herald is not the best source for earthquakes. Quoting this one: "Including the unofficial record it has never caused an earthquake of magnitude 5.3 years in North Pyongan one Ŭiju 1980. (Union)" What are you going to write based on that?
Number 8 – Korea.kr states "Earthquakes are recorded with a maximum gotta 5.3 scale earthquake in January 1980, North Pyongan Ŭiju sakju." OK, I don't see how that's authoritative or useful in creating an encyclopedic entry.
Number 9 – boannanews.com is not an adequate for earthquake material.

This whole list reeks of desperation.

Dawnseeker2000 20:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers aren't a good source for notability? We must edit different Wikis. And they were the first results from google using a translation I got from google translate. The word you're looking for is lazy. If you want efficiency, ask someone who knows Korean. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not when they've got it wrong. Dawnseeker2000 21:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but if what you're trying to say is that a Korean editor is to be the final word regarding the reliability of Korean sources, then I will have to disagree. The majority of sources that I've seen presented about this event are inadequate. What sort of authority on earthquakes are TV stations and newspapers? Let me tell you something. I have worked on a fair amount of earthquake articles and I've seen newspapers incorrectly report on aspects of the event. This is true even for highly respected newspapers like the Los Angeles Times. Surprised? Don't be. I mean, really, who are you going to trust on these issues? 25-year-old newspaper and TV reporters? On earthquake matters, wouldn't you more readily trust a seismoloigcal organization or a university earth sciences researcher? Dawnseeker2000 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just prove time and time again that you have no understanding of the real world notability of an event outside of how notable of an earthquake it was. Take the earthquake out. It's an event. Would you not include a notable event as a 37 word sidenote to the article of the county it happened in? My guess is you'll answer no even though you would if it weren't an earthquake. But because it's an earthquake it all changes because you're an earthquake enthusiast and there's nothing more you hate than a puny tiny earthquake getting all the glory from the massive earthquakes you love so much. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand my perspective. I like writing and have written articles on moderate events. They're some of my best work. Didn't you read what I wrote? I said I'd write this article myself if there were adequate sources. What you've presented are not good enough and don't really say anything anyway. The sources that should be used to state whether this was the largest event in the north Korea area say something completely different. Dawnseeker2000 21:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're avoiding the question. If the biggest snowstorm in the Korean peninsula happened in this county 36 years ago — always being referred to when there's a news article of any snowstorm in Korea — would it not merit 37 words to mention it as a sidenote in the county's article? There were no deaths reported by a notoriously stiff-lipped nation so I guess not. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the largest

This is a 6.2 Mw strike-slip event that occurred near Pyongyang in 1952. So if we toss the claim of largest for the 1980 event, we are left with practically nothing (encyclopedia entries and articles are based on much more than that).

Kang, Tae-Seob; Jun, Myung-Soon (2011). Some studies on the 1952 earthquake near Pyeongyang, North Korea (PDF). The 1st Annual Meeting of the Project of Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Next Generation Map: Strategic Japanese-Chinese-Korean Cooperative Program. Harbin Institute of Technology.

Dawnseeker2000 01:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no deaths, no injuries, no damage, no analysis in the scientific literature, and not the largest known Korean earthquake, which was instead the 1952 Pyongyang event. All that equals not notable and unworthy of a freestanding encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnseeker2000, Mr. Magoo, Let's discuss it, has anyone check Korean sources? If not does anyone mind if I ping some editors with experience in Korean subject? I don't want to be accused of canvassing again. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of the paper are from Korean institutions: Pukyong National University and the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources. Dawnseeker2000 20:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking about source written in the Korean language regarding this. I am not Korean so I would not know where to begin a search. Do you mind if I ping in Korean editors? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can send a neutral invitation to anyone, but it is hard to see how a temblor that causes no property damage, no deaths and no injuries is worthy of a freestanding encyclopedia article. It is a triviality unworthy of further discussion, in my opinion. Massive numbers of such minor non-notable earthquakes take place all over the planet all the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Uiju County - seems like there is a lot of discussion needed and content can be still transferred to other place. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about what, specifically? I think that I've shown that there's nothing known about it. Dawnseeker2000 16:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Uiju County It seems that the event is refernced a frequently in Korean articles about earthquakes in the peninsula so I feel it's acceptable to keep but with so little information on it the event doesn't need a separate page.Peachywink (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you imagine if we applied the "merge to the locale" response to this kind of problem to all the non-notable earthquakes articles that are created? We'd have a never-ending stream of useless entries that would be added to our city, county, and country articles. How does that approach align with constructing a high quality encyclopedia? My understanding of this project is that we're writing about notable topics that are educational, informative, and interesting. This event is none of those things. Dawnseeker2000 01:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly passes GNG given the sources provided and also earthquake GNG per:

Unusually large events in areas of low seismicity - the 'largest earthquake since 1992' doesn't make it notable but the 'largest event since records began' probably does, as long as the area is large enough (i.e.countries rather than counties)

User:Cullen328 The 1952 earthquake occurred before official monitoring began in 1978 so this is officially the largest. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:55, 21 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. After three weeks of debate, pretty evenly split on opinions, and no killer arguments on either side. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases[edit]

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

Wikipedia not dictionary - üser:Altenmann >t 06:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Should be at wiktionary if anywhere.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This would set a bad precedent for Wikipedia; see List of LGBT slang terms, LGBT slang, List of South African slang words, List of United States Marine Corps acronyms and expressions, and so on. Editors are advised to consider the repercussions of deleting an article like this one. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are advised not to follow the above advise since it is against policy which does not recognize WP:OTHERSTUFF as a valid argument in deletion decisions - each topic stands or falls on its own merits and notability.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay, not a policy. The assessment posted above that "it is against policy" is incorrect. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is true that WP:NOT#DICT says that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide", point 4 also says "Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable". And clearly lists are a normal part of this encyclopedia, and sometimes the lists contain short and non-notable elements as per WP:ATD-M. So therefore it seems to me that we need to consider whether this page is a "descriptive article about language" rather than a type of dictionary. I think on balance the page may need to be re-written to make it less like a dictionary and more like a descriptive article (in this case about slang in Puerto Rica). JMWt (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article could use a lot more citations and less original research, but judging by the fair amount of references currently listed in the article and the similar articles Ahnoneemoos provided, this could be a lot more than just a dictionary entry. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 17:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is still applicable with any language, keepable. Swis::terTwister talk 20:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: What do you mean? That sounds like you're saying we have these lists for every language, but I don't see one for any language. Phrases and idioms for a few languages (Latin, Greek, French, German...), but even among those there are no lists of "slang words", which is intensely broad (the whole "lexicon of non-standard words and phrases in a given language"). There are Lists of English words including e.g. list of ethnic slurs which is, of course, related to slang, but if anything it's a tiny notable subset of slang. If it were significantly narrower along those lines and held to very strict standards for reliable sources, I could see keeping this, but as just "slang"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because not all of them use the format 'List of'. Here's a few: British slang (has an extensive list of terms), Indonesian slang (list of terms as well), Cantonese profanity, and Mandarin Chinese profanity (terms as well). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to this below. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to breaking into one or more much narrower lists or using some of this content in an article about Puerto Rican slang (therefore Userfy/Draftify are both fine options) - I'm not opposed to lists of words as a general rule. We have plenty of them, and they're often easy to justify on notability grounds. But "slang words and phrases" is way, way, way too broad. Most of my rationale is articulated just above, in my response to SwisterTwister. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British slang kinda defeats your argument. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you listed above are are either not stand-alone lists or not about slang. The two you listed above that are lists aren't about "slang words and phrases" -- they're about profanity, which is a much smaller subject. The other two are articles, not stand-alone lists, so they don't need to meet criteria for stand-alone lists. If there's a problem with their embedded lists, it could be addressed locally rather than at AfD because you could remove them wholesale and still have a viable article. As for the British slang AfD, it was explicitly kept because [and the tide of the discussion turned when] it was rewritten as an article about British slang rather than just a list of slang terms. From WP:LISTGLOSSARY, in talking about the topics we should have here vs. on Wiktionary: "alphabetical, topical lists of terms, rather than of notable entities – are encyclopedic when the entries they provide are primarily informative explorations of the listed terminology, pertaining to a notable topic that already has its own main article on Wikipedia" In other words, it would need to have "informative explorations of the listed terminology" and connect to an existing article (i.e. Puerto Rican slang or something similar). Hence why I'm fine userfying or draftifying so the content isn't lost if someone wants to make such an article or narrow down the subject I've updated my !vote slightly to clarify regarding the former). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just as a side note, while I suggested deleting, userfying, or draftifying, if it's kept I'd suggest this list be renamed Glossary of Puerto Rican slang. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD A7: Article about an organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Democratic National Convention[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:RUMOUR Adam9007 (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7 (tagged it) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RUMOUR and WP:TOOSOON. Graham (talk) 04:24, 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.

[1] ttp://www.geonet.org.nz/quakes/region/newzealand/2016p118944

[2] ttp://www.geonet.org.nz/quakes/region/newzealand/3631359

[3] ttp://www.geonet.org.nz/quakes/region/newzealand/3631380

[4] ttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Arbitrary+Statistics

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]