Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 February	17 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atom Cianfarani[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a fashion designer, written with a advertorial skew to it and not referenced to any reliable source coverage: right across the board, every single source here is a blog, an entry for her company in a business directory, a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article that isn't substantively about her, or the mere mention of her name in the caption to a photograph. Article was initially tagged for BLPPROD, but the inadequate sourcing was added afterward — but this is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a fashion designer into Wikipedia: she must be substantively the subject of coverage in reliable sources to earn one. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not properly sourced.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unfortunately still questionable for the applicable creative biographies notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 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 speedy delete. CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert lee adams[edit]

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

I didn't capitalize his full name. Please delete this article, and allow me to re-make this redirect. Thanks. Boomer Vial^Holla 23:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Boomer Vial^Holla 23:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Boomer Vial - probably better to do a page move? Olly^{say hi} 00:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Leb[edit]

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

Lack of notability of subject of page Philbrick86 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet WP:BLPNOTE - well-known in his field, especially in the Jewish and New York political communities, has held a range of positions in various fields, has contributed/been quoted in highly regarded newspapers, the article is well referenced with independent sources. I'll be honest - if someone with more knowledge on the social and political context can provide an alternate view, I'd be willing to listen Olly^{say hi} 22:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search reveals articles linked to constitute most news article mentions on the internet. Page the clear product of PR work. Uncertain notability to the general Wikipedia community. Appears to be successful, but that does not constitute notability per Wikipedia standards.Philbrick86 (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Reputable ethnic newspapers are RS, however, it would take some amount of significant coverage in larger-scale media to pass notability. What I am seeing, while real: [1], is too little to justify an article. And while he has held responsible staff jobs, he has not held a post that would pass notability unless there were profiles of him or discussions of his impact on policy (not necessarily as full-length articles, but at least as significant coverage within articles,) appearing in significant media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem here is that a lot of the sources being cited here aren't about him, but merely namecheck him in passing while being fundamentally about somebody or something else — and the ones that are fundamentally about him aren't adding much in the way of substance. Nearly all of the sources which actually have his name right in the headline, for example, are covering him in the context of his role on a local public library board — which is not a role that gets a person over WP:NPOL. On both sourcing and substance, nothing here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 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. Mackensen (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of Washington Alumni Association[edit]

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

I don't want to say that no alumni association can be notable, but I see no evidence that this one is. The contents would be of no interest to anyone who is not a member or prospective member, and therefore not suited to an encyclopedia. The way it's written seems to indicate it is copied from various parts of their site. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence of independent notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionably independently notable or merge to the university's article at best as this is unlikely to be solidly independently notable from the university. Notifying the only still active AfDers Carrite, Namiba and Stuartyeates. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trim to two paras and a link to their home page and merge and redirect to Category:University of Washington alumni. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Staszek Lem--TM 00:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeany cited, non-promotional encyclopedic information and redirect to University of Washington. No evidence of notability. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 18:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just a standard aspect of being an operational university with any sense. No evidence that there's anything notable about this association as opposed to any other. Blythwood (talk) 22:23, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Tabach-Bank[edit]

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

Promotional bio, to accompany the just listed article on one of his companies. The articles are general, though he's usually the PR person giving the interview. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is currently questionably independently solid notable, likely best connected to the New York Loan Company and the TV series. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why is this person notable? clear PR work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbrick86 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York Loan Company[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable business. The refs are about pawn shops in general, or high-class pawn shops in general, not substantially about this company DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

delete advert of a nn business. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon at best, newly founded company with no convincingly better solid signs of applicable notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Clinical & Medical Hair Removal[edit]

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

no evidence of notability ; the refs are merely listings. Nor would one expect more, as its certification applies only to a few states in the US. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. lacking indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 23 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. Mackensen (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brough Family Organization[edit]

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

non notable family organization. exactly the type of article that does not belong in an encyclopedia . Nobody not a member of the family would have any conceivable interest. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again as my searches found nothing convincingly better at all despite what the article currently seems, and there's thus nothing to suggest better especially considering the 1st AfD. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is the Belnap Family Organization article in the same situation as the Brough Family Organization? -- 155.95.90.245 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This organization is of interest to people far beyond its worldwide membership. It is listed by FamilySearch.org as a prominent and exemplary family history association and FamilySearch patrons wanting to know more about such organizations are encouraged to consider its methods of research, publication and publicity. (https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Create_and_Maintain_Family_Associations_or_Organizations). This organization also has connections and mentions with renowned Brough Superior Motorcycles. (http://www.brough-superior.com/ws/frontend/seite/SeiteCms.php?coId=124&coType=navigation1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.181.128 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Brough Family Organization is a well-known Mormon Family Organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mormon_family_organizations). The LDS Church News and Deseret News have published several articles about the activities of the Brough Family Organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.181.128 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Family history has numerous organisations concerned with "one-name studies". I do not believe any are likely to be notable. Furthermore, as with many societies, there is going to be great difficulty in getting independent source information. The fact that a LDS publication refers to it probably merely means that LDS believe what the society says. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Brough Family Organization (BFO) is a comprehensive ancestral family history organization and not just a "one-name studies" entity. Like any Wikipedia-listed business that produces recognizable products and has supportive patrons and relevant publicity, the BFO is an excellent and notable representative of family history activities, research techniques, publications and services. As such it is worthy of being listed in Wikipedia.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After weighing the arguments, I find no true basis in policy for the arguments requesting the retention of the article in question. Therefore, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Branco[edit]

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

Autobiographic and in violation of WP:Promotion. A lot of the information provided is also not verifiable (list of influences -> source is an article written by the author himself) (WP: NRVE). Hybris1984 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.Hybris1984 (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Ok, there are a lot to correct, but why asking for deletion? I find this an abusive procedure.

Regards, --Daehan (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm quite agreeing with Daehan. Even it may be an autobiography, the subject seems to be notable enough. It is also curious that the deletion nominator is a SPA. Pro patria semper (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Same here. On the form: A lot of identified users passed on this page, and this is a one shot contribution by an anonymous one. On the merits: not argued what is auto-promotional. Work is being done to verify sources, I don't see that much unverifiable, and I've spent time checking the article (the quoted example being maybe the only one to be deletable under the rule of no original work, and even that...). Whether the person participated to its elaboration or not is not per se a criteria. So seems an abusive request. On the page itself: enough sources with broad coverage, French centered but with SP and EN sources (including NYTimes) that trigger that the article meets the criteria. --Rinko87 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to me it is certainly an autobiography, because the creator of the page, Brc, already signed under the name "Juan Branco" there (don't think it is an identity theft...). Which is more, his former pseudonym was "brancojuan" (see this changing username request). But it doesn't seem to have to do with the subject's notoriety. Pro patria semper (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sockpuppet and the subject himself. Proof here. Hybris1984 (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a sockpuppet is someone that uses an avatar to hide himself. Not the case of Daehan and Pps, of course, nor of Rinko87 as I have explicitly clarified as soon as I could (a few days after I created it) in the discussion pages that I was participating through this account and apologized for the confusions that arised from the circumstances and the lack of acknowledgement of my identity in the FR version (apologizes that I renew here, specially to User:Daehan and User:Pro patria semper with whom I interacted without stating my identity during that time). The same clarification regarding multiple accounts would be welcome from you. Yours. --MarceloBielsa (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adressing the arguments above and providing some further context.

First, some more examples of how the article is promotional and biased:

- In the introduction it says: "and [he] has been one of the leaders of the struggle against the French copyright law HADOPI in 2009" The source for this mentions Mr. Branco, but it does not call him "one of the leaders of the struggle" or anything of the sorts. I don't doubt that Mr. Branco was involved in this "struggle", but given that the article is admittedly autobiographical (as stated above: here), the claim to be "a leader" is clearly self-promotional.

- The article states: "His works belong to the critical theory school and have featured collaborations with Noam Chomsky,[15][16] Julian Assange,[17] Alain Badiou,[18] Jean-Luc Godard[19][20] and Baltasar Garzon[8] on issues regarding copyright law, mass violences, surveillance and individual freedoms in the digital age." An examination of the sources shows: The alleged collaboration with Noam Chomsky is an interview conducted by Mr. Branco's father. The collaboration with Mr. Assange is not sourced (the provided source is a link to the interview between Mr. Chomsky an Mr. Branco's father). The source for the collaboration with Alain Badiou is a link to a page on which two books are presented, one written by Mr. Badiou and one written by Mr. Branco - not sure how this constitutes a "collaboration". The collaboration with Jean Luc Godard is - once again - an interview between the latter and Mr. Branco's father. The link to the final collaboration (with Mr. Garzon) does not work... Given that the article was written by Mr. Branco himself, the promotional bias is very obvious.

- The article says: "He has also written extensively on the digital revolution and its effects on cultural industries, proposing a new financing model for the cinema industry based on a wide democratization of cultural access.[26][27]" This is more of a trifle, but two newspaper articles are not "extensive".

- More examples are obvious to anyone reading the article without bias.

Without taking away anything from Mr. Branco's achievements, which might (!) in fact be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, the way this article is written shows perfectly, why Wiki-autobiographies are a tricky thing. To claim a collaboration with Noam Chomsky (a claim also made by users Rinko87 and Daehan - more on this in a second) raises concerns, when the claim obviously falls short. To quote from the article: "If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later."

Regarding the users Daehan and Rinko87: These are the creators of the articles on Mr. Branco in French and Spanish. Considering that the wording (and phrasing) of the three different versions of the article are pretty much identical (including the somewhat outlandish claims about the collaborations, etc.) I have some doubt on whether they are different persons. Why would brc (again: admittedly Mr. Branco himself) only create the English verison given - according to the article - he is French/Spanish. Also why did all the inconsistencies get copied, without any source checking? This is just an addendum though. I think anyone reading the article objectively and checking the sources will find - even if he agrees that Mr. Branco is notable enough - that the article is ripe with self-promotion.Hybris1984 (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear talk, I would like to answer to some points you have brought, under my own name. Of course, nor Pps nor Daeshan are my sockpupets, and you would understand perfectly why I changed accounts after some important events on Fr Wikipedia. As I said, I'll stick to this pseudo to participate on this page.

I nonetheless realize that you are not being of good faith whilst dealing with this article. Regarding Chomsky, there are two quoted interviews, and you fail to acknowledge that one of them is made by myself alone, the other with his father as a co-interviewer. The collaboration with Assange is vastly sourced, actually a google research with both names will give you more than enough - and the more specific academic cooperation is sourced with a link with a common conference. Regarding Alain Badiou, he is the editor of my last book, published in his collection ouvertures (sourced again). I guess that's not enough for you... And regarding Godard, I just published a book with him and made two interviews, but I understand again that in your spirit this might not be enough (sic). Garzon same, you will find an important number of links apart the one sourcing the article itself, by just typing both names together on google.

Regarding cultural policies, I agree the extensively could be withdrawn, but two articles and two books is indeed a production. I would perfectly understand that you'd be willing to to improve the article - intention I fully agree with - but I don't really see that intention here. And again, I've not intended to use any sockpupett, but had to change my pseudo participations for an event unrelated to this question. For the sake of clarity I have engaged myself to limit my interventions to this account. But in the interest of the encyclopedia, good faith should be shown by all parts. You have made no arguments regarding admissibility. Your edgyness is not helping. Yours--MarceloBielsa (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hybris1984. I just would like to bring a precision: it is not dubious that Daehan ≠ Rinko87, because of the impossibility to talk to each other (see the French article's talk page) otherwise. Regards. Pro patria semper (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, thank you PPS! Still makes me wonder why the three different language versions all include every claim made without checking the sources... It still seems dubious that the author would only create the English article, considering he is French/Spanish.Hybris1984 (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Just to be clear: I created this article because it was asked in the French WP forum HERE (just because I found the subject interesting). I just translated the English version, checking the sources there were on this version (you can see a proof of that here), but I admit I didn't go further, knowing that this was an article about someone linked to politics (thus prone to be visited by many users in the future). I just wanted to complete the absence of article for what is a 100% admissible article.

I fully agree about the lacks of the article (and I express it in the French WP) − and I add that I am a bit disappointed to realize that Juan Branco himself has altered the content with different usernames −, but you seem to forget that a deletion procedure is for articles that are not admissible. If you don't agree with some contents, suppress it, argue about it in the talk page, etc., but asking for deletion is not acceptable.

I think that you can ask any frenchspeaker to check the French talk page of the article to see the good will and good faith of Pro patria semper and myself. Now we can (hopefully) evacuate any personal attack, can we focus on what really all of this is about : deletion/conservation?

I add that I find it funny to see that you checked our background while you have created this account only for this deletion purpose... I think you should close this procedure...

Regards, --Daehan (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:Deletion Policy mandates deletion. Also to quote from WP:BIO: "If you create an autobiography, you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that." Promotional intent has been (imo) sufficiently proven above... Add in the bad faith sockpuppetry and I am convinced deletion is the appropriate step. I have not attacked anyone, merely raised concerns. The Rinko87 sockpuppet proves that my concerns are not without grounds...

I would very much like to hear the assessment of someone who isn't involved, as to the notability of the subject and adherence of the article to WP guidelines.

As to this being my first contribution: Indeed. My points still stand. You have failed to adress any argument. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As said, I think Juan Branco reaches criterias, and therefore that the page must be kept. However, in my opinion, from now on, the page will have to be watched closely, as we discovered it is an autobiography. — Regards, Pro patria semper 15:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fail to anything, as my point was only to clarify some funny assumptions of yours (btw, "As to this being my first contribution: Indeed. My points still stand" ; yeah, let's not follow this path ;) ) As I said: is the subject admissible? Would you dare to prove that it is not? If there is autobiographic content, let's identify it, suppress it, and stick to what's encyclopedic material.

We should close this procedure and discuss about all the points we need to study and suppress in the article (as I said I totally agreed to do).

Don't just play with words ("or even deleted if it comes to that") and try and be objective and constructive about this issue.

Regards, --Daehan (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for coming off strong, but this discussion feels a bit like tilting at windmills. I expressed (and explained my) doubts concerning users Rinko87 and Daehan. I since discovered that Rinko87 is in fact a sockpuppet, which did nothing to assuage my concerns. I fail to see how I could be any more objective, since I have nothing to do with the creation of the article. I have shown how the article is in violation of multiple WP:Guidelines and nobody has argued otherwise. I feel the reasons provided are grounds for a deletion and the quote I provided is not me "playing with words" but directly from here.

If you do however insist on this also extending to notability, fine:

Subject is also not noteable as per WP:BIO. The subject has neither received a "well-known and significant award or honor" nor has he made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". He does not qualify under any of the nine criteria as to WP:ACADEMIC nor under those listed in WP:AUTHOR. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Hybris, but here too, you are acting in bad faith or in ignorance. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]". You know very well this criteria, which is the cardinal one, is perfectly filled. I presume of your overall good faith, as it is the rule on WP, but I wonder what are the reasons of your action, and talking about sock-puppets (it was explained regarding my situation), why, seen that you seem to know quite well the functionning of the encyclopedia, you created a single purpose account for this question. I don't want to deviate the discussion to too secondary elements though, and I hope other contributors will participate and enhance the page, in spite of the direction taken by this debate. Yours --MarceloBielsa (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted so we can discuss the actual article DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DGG.

To make my nomination more accessible for newcomers:

- Author: Subject is argueing with at least three accounts (article creator Brc and users Rinko87 - proof above - and MarceloBielsa -own admission) for his own notability.

- Sources: are largely written by the subject himself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or mention him merely in passing 1 2 3 4 5 The few reliable sources I could find are an interview for the newspaper he is contributing to 1 this book review 2 and this profile from a French online investigative and opinion journal 3.

- Article is heavy on self-promotion: I refer to my examples given above... The claimed "featured collaboration" with Noam Chomsky says it all in my opinion.

Regards -- Hybris1984 (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete An overblown promotion. Little in-depth coverage of the person in independent sources. Some parts of the article greatly exaggerate his role in activism. Most independent sources cited just briefly mention the name. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as said, although it's an autobiography, I think the subject reaches criterias. — Regards, Pro patria semper 12:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. The different (?) contributors above who have repeatedly accused the nominator of abuse and bad faith should pull in their horns and read WP:NPA. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
keep : notability clearly established. Bishonen, you'll tell me where I did a personal attack while I was accused (by someone who created an account for this sole purpose) to have several accounts, instead of providing any argument regarding notoriety. You completely lost the purpose of this procedure and are going to delete an article based on no argument but the suspition to be autopromotion (while we all agreed to delete the autopromotion parts instead of the whole article). Sorry to see how things are managed here... --Daehan (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article looks like it is suffering from WP:citation overkill meant to disguise a lack of notability. If this person were truly notable, this should be more or less immediately evident in the article. The sources provided, far from "clearly establishing" the subject's notability (if it were "clear", we wouldn't be here), have instead suggested the opposite. I found nothing substantive in my own albeit cursory search on him. KDS4444^Talk 09:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a few problematic issues for me. First, there is no strong claim to notability. Lede basically says he's an early-in-career attorney and an activist and much of article is just an expanded recitation of these activities. The more concerning aspect is the source list. Much of it is web-cruft, including YouTube videos. Solid references, like the NYT article (reference #42) don't mention his name. Others are actually misleading, like the title of #3 in the article is "Juan Branco: HADOPI's rejection is an immense victory for cinema and liberties", but the actual title is Rejet d'Hadopi: «Une immense victoire pour le cinéma et les libertés» – he is only trvially mentioned in the article. I think KDS4444 has it right – the article strains to mask a lack of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete : notability clearly not established, proven by inexistence of focused secondary sources, as seen in the AfD process in fr.wp. Kumʞum ouatizite ? 22:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not bear out the significance claimed in the article. He clearly does not pass WP:PROF, but it looks like he also does not pass WP:GNG, and in any case the article needs WP:TNT to remove all the self-promotion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. From the nominator's editing history, which includes vandalism to this article, this does not appear to be a good faith nomination. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of box office bombs[edit]

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

the article contains wrong and waste information Websof (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Everything seems well sourced. Topic is notable. If there is any "wrong and waste information" it should be brought up on the talk page and corrected. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 21:12, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Yadav[edit]

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

Autobiography of social activist not yet notable per WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. There are a few passing mentions of his name in the press, in articles about corruption cases, but I can find no significant coverage of him online from WP:Reliable sources. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Clearly not notable enough... -- Hybris1984 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has a list of cases in which the subject has been involved, and where he is mentioned in the corresponding press coverage, but neither these nor the "Quotes said about him" added by User:Yadav771 seems strong enough to demonstrate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 16:53, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 13:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Code Conspiracy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM. Some trivial coverage, but no significant coverage. Brycehughes (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

non-English:

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

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

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

Hungary:(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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG; as well as NYT [2] also this review [3] Atlantic306 (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snap (dance move)[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 11 years. I created it at times of vague rules. I don't think is fits modern notability/WP:CITE policies. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. relist at request of major contributor.(doesn't quite qualify for speedy) DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this could potentially be merged with Glossary of dance moves, if there is any content to be salvaged. Mz7 (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreferenced stuff does not belong to wikipedia. If someone finds references, there is no need to "merge"; just write it up afresh. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:39, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Florin Moldovan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Facebook and YouTube are not Reliable Sources... JMHamo (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only is the sourcing abysmal, the claim to notability is risible. Placing 10th in a national Eurovision selection is not exactly indicative of notability as a musician. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am sure this page claims its notability, not only by the fact that Moldovan placed 10th in the national preselection, but also because he is very controversial by the fact that he's going to change sex and that he never passes the ESC preselection, where he participated three years in a row. Besides this, I'm afraid that the page is referenced; there's a full biography and more references from reliable Romanian newspapers and websites. YouTube is not a perfect source, but allowed, as far as I know. - Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as the current article seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:23, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Edward Blair[edit]

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

Married a minor Jordanian royal. Doesn't seem notable to me. Uhooep (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom -- Hybris1984 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of Wikipedia notability apart from one event, his marriage.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as I would've frankly commented and I planned to but the consensus seems clear with, of course, any plans of merging be mentioned if needed, because there seems to be no obvious considerations of actually deleting (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CWSDPMI[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. References consist entirely of self-published notes by the author in various forums, and the text of the article doesn't even suggest that the product is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of software products, and this product's existence alone is not sufficient reason for inclusion. ubiquity (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge As far as DOS extenders are concerned, CWSDPMI is one of the more notable ones. This is arguably such an obscure topic nowadays that is might make more sense to merge this (together with the other articles on individual DOS extenders) into one larger article. Or otherwise into DJGPP, the compiler it shipped with. I found a few mentions of this on Google Books, but I could only see the snippet view, so I'm not sure if those are very useful. —Ruud 09:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DJGPP or maybe DOS extender. This is a tricky one, as it's likely that there was some coverage from back in the day. Google Books, for example, shows a hit from C/C++ Users Journal that could probably be used if someone found a copy. However, other online searches turn up little. For example, I searched Dr. Dobbs' archive, but only found a mention in reader mail. I think the best course of action would be to merge this to DJGPP, which is definitely notable. Or maybe DOS extender, which seems like a pretty decent alternative. Although it's possible that there are more offline sources that were never digitized, the topic is rather specialized and esoteric, as Ruud says. I'm a bit skeptical that there are mountains of sources out there waiting to be discovered in the library. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary and due to the age of this technology, and seeing that artiles for other extenders (DOS/32, PMODE, DOS/4G) are in similar shape, I'm strongly inclined to give this one the benefit of the doubt. I don't see a merge working here but if someone can figure out a way to make that work, there's no need to get AfD involved in that. ~Kvng (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahamefule J. Oluo[edit]

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

Notability is not asserted in the article and could not be confirmed online. Google searches reveal a handful of legitimate hits in relatively minor news sources, generally just mentioning the name as opposed to giving in-depth coverage. It looks as if the article has already been subject to failed speedy and PROD deletion suggestions. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as there's some coverage but this is still questionable for the music notability, searches found a few links at News and browsers but this is still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Fortuny[edit]

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

BLP1E Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Basically all coverage of the subject is from one event, textbook case of WP:BLP1E. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 14:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one event misses inclusion criteria, the 2nd news story only came due to his earlier coverage.Atlantic306 (talk) 05:07, 24 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 True self and false self. Both nom & editor below this should be redirected so no need to leave this open any longer...

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real self[edit]

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

Superfluous as "real self" is closely related to "true self" in true self and false self. It is conceptually a fore runner and should really be mentioned in true self and false self. Much of the text used here comes from Karen Horney#Theory of the self which also mentions the complimentary concept "ideal self" (equivalent to false self) but that does not have a separate article. Real self should redirect to true self and false self as true self does. Penbat (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not deserve a separate article. If there is anything that hasn't been repeated, then merge such content into the appropriate articles (e.g. either Horney or the true and false self article). ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 17:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Redirect to true self and false self, per below. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 17:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is dubious whether there is any text worth salvaging but more importantly Karen Horney#Theory of the self should have some coverage in true self and false self to tie the strands together. I have made a comment here - Talk:True self and false self#Karen Horney. I have taken a copy of this article just in case - User:Penbat/Real self. --Penbat (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to True self and false self (no need to delete the version history: Horney's concept of "real self" squarely fits into that article, so a redirect is justified). --Chris Howard (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree.--Penbat (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Republic of Iran Amateur Wrestling Federation[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur organization, no references, no significant information Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article. No doubt Iran produces very good wrestlers, but this organization can't inherit notability from them.Mdtemp (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:GNG since it has no sources. My search didn't turn up any significant coverage. Of course it's possible there are good sources in Farsi, but that's beyond both my language and search capabilities. Papaursa (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Downfall of Nur[edit]

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

Non-notable band. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly this is not enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Adamczyk[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a player that has not played in any WP:FPL and the footballer also fails WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - 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) 12:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 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 and redirect to Channel Awesome#The Blockbuster Buster. MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Blockbuster Buster[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources listed. Article is about a vaguely known online personality who hasn't made any claim to noteritity. Just like JonTron, except JonTron has potential to become notable. This guy doesn't. Rusted AutoParts 16:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Channel Awesome#The Blockbuster Buster Outside of CA, very non-notable reviewer without much reach outside that website. I would hold no prejudice to a full deletion if that's not satisfactory (the CA article writing on him is puffier than Lorelai Gilmore's blue jacket). Nate • (chatter) 05:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 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. Mackensen (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Mijares[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

"non-professional artist" and that about says it. The refs are mentions or publicity. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and draft and userfy if needed as this is questionable for WP:CREATIVE and my searches only found the expected coverage at News, browsers and Highbeam. Notifying 1st AfDers Ireneshih, 27century and Delta13C. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficient significant coverage. Probably WP:TOOSOON.--Jahaza (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am now under the impression this is WP:TOOSOON. There is just not enough in-depth coverage of him in multiple independent venues that are reliable. Delta13C (talk) 22:18, 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. Can be userfied etc. on request. Sandstein 21:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Polk[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 an IP on the grounds that he will play for Portland Timbers. However, there is a long standing consensus against applying WP:NSPORT prematurely in anticipation of future appearances. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace There's no policy or consensus-based reason for this article to be kept. However, as he is signed to Portland Timbers short of a life-threatening injury, it's inconceivable that he won't either be playing there, or in their fully-professional reserve squad Portland Timbers 2 shortly, and then we'd just have to recreate the article. It's really a waste of everyone's time to be trying to delete players during pre-season, when we are only going to have to recreate them shortly, rather than just having some WP:COMMONSENSE and waiting a couple of weeks to see how things play out. As such, the article is best moved to draftspace to allow it to develop before it's moved back in a few weeks. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace - It is likely that the subject will play in a WP:FPL this season, and moving to draftspace is a viable alternative to deletion. Once he plays, then the article can be updated and moved back to mainspace. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. – Michael (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Elmalty[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Vanity article created by subject. reddogsix (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A speedy was declined, but I would certainly have thought it fell within A7. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no signs of better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef is notable on the field of cyber security globally and all his publications are building and raising security awareness for the industry. He has been preaching cyber security best practices in two continants Africa and Asia for the past decade, He was awarded the Stanford who's who 2013 for this contribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.205.17 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No positive evidence of notability. (The Who's Who scam copying the name of a famous university may be considered as negative evidence...) —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient evidence of notability. Apparently written by subject. ~Kvng (talk) 22:08, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stack the States[edit]

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

Lack of WP:GNG. Using the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, it shows up in the list "Mobile Apps to Keep Kids Occupied and Happy" on PC Mag and specifically on Engadget. Even if it is in fact the most popular app, that's not a reason to have an article on the subject. Soetermans. T / C 12:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is [4] not by Engadget staff? There's also under-review shortish 148apps. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- When I click on her name, it shows up empty. She's not on the staff page, maybe she doesn't work there any more? Her Twitter description doesn't help, while her personal website has expired. But when I google her name, it does bring up more Engadget articles... --Soetermans. T / C 16:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I would call them reliable, in this instance, even if they are/were not part of regular staff. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, considering her work, I'd say the Engadget source would be okay and I've reworded my original rationale. Do you think two sources are enough to merit its own article? --Soetermans. T / C 17:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hodgkins worked for Joystiq and that whole site was subsumed into Engadget czar 20:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Engadget review looks good and 148apps might be good, but otherwise I cannot locate any in-depth material. Does not appear to be enough content to write an article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likewise. I was going to nominate this myself but wasn't interested in dealing with the edge cases: there are a few hits in a video game reliable sources custom (and normal) Google search that recommend the game for kids, but they don't say enough about the game or its importance to warrant an article about the topic. If there were multiple reviews from reliable sources, I could change my mind, but I don't see it. Article topic lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) No worthwhile redirect targets. czar 20:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons I left in my PROD nomination. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Buck Finance[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable company. This article is a deceptivly sourced piece that is more about payday loans than it is about this company. The majority of references do not mention Uncle Buck and somtimes do not even verify the claims made. Others are mostly listings or PR.
The only thing of note seems to be their appearence in an ITV documentry, but such appearences are not entirely independent.
Much of the "Size of market" section is copied directly from one of the sources so may be a copyright issue. - "Payday lending market investigation" (PDF). Competition & Markets Authority, Summary, par. 9
This was declined at afc but just created anyway. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the listed information and sources are convincing enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:CORP. sourcing is insufficiently in depth or not third party. LibStar (talk) 08:03, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GeoSure Global[edit]

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

Spam bombarded with press releases. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. NBC News is a good start but by itself is not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as classic example of a seemingly amply sourced article but this actually seems to be a newly founded company with only pieces of sources listed, none of this being enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Milan Hall of Fame[edit]

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

After a failed PROD, I'm bringing the issue here. Basically, this is an arbitrary list of former Milan footballers that the club call Hall of Fame on their website, but there is really nothing more to it. A quick Google search shows an almost total lack of any third-party coverage and the club themselves don't really seem to intend it as anything more than a selection of notable players put together by the website editors. Besides, we already have the customary list of A.C. Milan players to serve the same purpose in a more encylopedic manner. Luxic (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Luxic (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletion discussions. Luxic (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list does include four players not included on the lst of ACMilan players, such as Roberto Baggio.Atlantic306 (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. that's a reason to add them to the main article, not to keep this partial duplicate. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move any beneficial content to the main article as there are no signs of a better independently notable here. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the so-called "hall of fame" just seems to be the header for a section of the club's website where they put up bios of some great former players, rather than a formal recognition with a proper selection process, award handed out, etc. Can't see any notability here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally redundant list Spiderone 11:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 15:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NeoPhotonics Corporation[edit]

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

Creator of article objected to PROD and added a couple of sources but they are routine business directories and don't establish WP:CORP notability. Brianhe (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a public corporation, listed on the New York Stock Exchange.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment²: "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case" per WP:LISTED. – Brianhe (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added a history section, with references from The Wall Street Journal, Forbes and Yahoo! News. Is that not sufficient?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the sources added on 16 February is they are all in-passing or routine transactions with the single exception of the Forbes piece. The requirement for in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources still has not been met. - Brianhe (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the article in its current state, with more info added since it was nominated, it passes WP:CORP. There are several non-trivial articles from reliable sources. The market cap is $389 million, so it is a decent sized company too. Edwardx (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, market cap is not a criterion listed under WP:CORP. Notability depends completely on the quality of the sourcing. Where's the in-depth coverage? – Brianhe (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rule books can't cover every aspect. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Level of coverage seems adequate to me. --Jayron 32 03:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the added sources and expansion it's good to... stay? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:37, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monk Ashland[edit]

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

No evidence, that this author is notable. Probably self-written article. Note: This article seems to form a walled garden, including Kaimira and The Sky Village by the same editor. GermanJoe (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. co-author of one moderately successful book (300 entries in worldcat since publication in 2008). Normally I suggest in such cases moving the book information to the author, but there are two authors. (since a second book in the series has never been written, those two article need to be merged, probably to the title of the book that was actually published.) DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already redirected the series to the one actually published book. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete., does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, a gsearch reveals nothing useable for this author, only one co-authored book is not enough. ps. a quick look at gsearch for the book does bring up a Booklist and a not flattering Kirkus Reviews review, which is enough for the book but not the author. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, probably a case of WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On-Site.com[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:PROMO and WP:CORP. Searches result in little to improve the article. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After searching and finding nothing but a few passing mentions at News ("On-Site.com software"), Chrisw80 and I concluded this is questionably notable for the applicable notability and the listed sources are not convincing enough even the listed NYTimes which only mentions them a few times. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. basically its just advertising. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The NY Times article includes a picture of Jake Harrington, who is the current CEO at On-Site and quotes him a number of times as well as mentioning On-Site.com by name. There are Wikipedia articles for many other companies that operate in the property management software space. I'd like to help improve the quality of this page. I've submitted a few improvements this morning and will work with a few others to continue. --Bi9kahuna (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can multiple independent and reliable sources that discuss the subject comprehensively and are willing to change the article to remove the promotional nature of it, please do. The NYT article is only a passing mention, no matter how you look at it, specifically because they are not the subject of the article. While this would be fine to cite in an article for content, it does not help establish notability. Please read WP:CORP for more information about corporate notability guidelines. The other references are also only non-notable awards, passing mentions or primary sources. Regarding the comment regarding other articles existing, just because other articles exist, doesn't make an argument (in and of itself) for this one - especially if those articles are not as inadequately sourced as this one. Thank you for your interest in this discussion and this article. Chrisw80 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If other articles for similar companies are in Wikipedia without being nominated for deletion, the deletion of this article appears biased or possibly malicious. While the notability may be debatable, it isn't clearly "not at all" notable. Wikipedia is not limited by the number of pages it can print in a volume, that's its benefit. 172.10.237.153 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, other articles existing is not a good argument by itself for a 'keep' in a deletion discussion. Also, please remember to assume good faith when working with other editors. Accusations of bias or malicious intent are not constructive or acceptable. Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NPA. Chrisw80 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm sorry. I'm the original author of this article, and it has changed quite a lot - what makes the company notable has been severely de-emphasized and the emphasis given to non-encyclopedic content. I was very taken aback when I saw it. Bi9Kahuna, the "History" should show a better construction for the article. 172.10.237.153 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate and accept the apology, thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 22:01, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dritan Kiçi[edit]

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

Article created by a WP:SPA, potentially the person himself. Falls clearly into WP:SELFPROMOTE. Fails WP:N, a simple google search shows no justified notability. The person is involved in many activities but notable enough in none of them. The creator has mistaken WP with a CV posting site. Mondiad (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better coverage can be found because this is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable despite lots of self-promotion on social media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yumiko Kosaka[edit]

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

She sings in a few anime songs and has a profile in Oricon however there is little to no notability besides that she participated in that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She seems to satisfy WP:SINGER#5 by having two albums on a major record label, although I can't find any coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guidelines or to actually verify that. Opencooper (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(I've changed my !vote to a weak keep because in general she seems to meet criteria by both charting and having albums) Opencooper (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While my search for reliable coverage was surprisingly empty, I suspect that, given she was mostly active in the 1990s, there could be offline coverage existing somewhere. She sang some anime theme songs, so that sure should have gotten at least some press at the time. Given that I have no access to Japanese offline sources, I'm not !voting on this one (although I'm leaning towards a keep, if only due to her having charting records), but I am pinging Michitaro, who seems to be an expert on these kinds of things. If offline coverage is found not to exist or is insignificant, I will !vote delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be sufficient to retain if she has charted in the 1990s for her work. She does appear in Oricon and CD Japan. Pinging Prosperosity AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would solve things if we could prove she charted, but the main problem is that there are no reliable online sources of record charting in Japan before the 2000s that I know of. Oricon's database does not go back that far. There are sites like this that preserve some of the Oricon charts back into the 90s and 80s, but this one only gives the monthly rankings, not the weekly ones. Incidentally, she does not appear in the rankings for May, June or July 1993, which is when "Believe Me" (which was seemingly her biggest hit) was released. I can check Oya Soichi to see if she appeared much in the popular press in the 90s. Michitaro (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better convincing coverage can be found as this is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably not notable but it pains me that now we're left with multiple mentions of her on the other articles, without links from there to her own article describing her career and other participations. I mentioned this on another AfD about a minor game developer as well. Only a few games under one's belt and without notability but still would be interesting seeing the career even if it's tiny. This isn't an argument but a rant. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Her single BELIEVE ME did not chart in the Oricon Top 30 Singles for the week of release [5], same for マスカレード [6], 永遠の孤独 [7] and REASON [8]. There is a tiny Mixi fan community for her [9] without her involvement, she was active for less than two years and only association with Tekkaman Blade keeps her name up for searches. Jun Kayama 05:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:Notability from reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RifRaf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ARTIST. previous AfD seems to be for an Israeli rifraf, although could be the same person. there was no coverage in NZ Herald and limited in gnews. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a creative. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fairly extensive search has not found anything to improve notability NealeFamily (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Providence (religious movement). (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EXODUS (NGO)[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 03:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, lacks general notability. Ireneshih (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Providence (religious movement): already mentioned there, under "controversies about the trial": Noyster (talk), 20:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as specified. It has no independent notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if needed as there are no signs of independent notability for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete organization is not notable, article is not properly sourced. SugarvilleMom (talk) 09:18, 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. Sandstein 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandran Superman[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG, reads like a CV JMHamo (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nearly speedy material and I'm impulses to tag it as such, article is barely comprehensible and no signs of solidly better. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ANYBIO, a person may be notable if The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour... This person is a Guinness World Record Holder. Per WP:ARTIST, a person may be notable if the person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. Newspapers like The New Paper (apparently Singapore's 2nd highest circulating English paper) have critically reviewed him deeply and multiple times, both positively and negatively – the negative one is interesting, because that shows critical review. This extensive day-long photo feature with journalist Regina Marie Lee is also evidence of winning critical attention. I suspect he would even qualify on WP:ENTERTAINER, being the significant performer in various stage shows, which are documented on reliable sources like The New Indian Express. The current state of the article is bad, even pathetic – it needs to be majorly culled and shorn of the hagiographic stuff. But not a delete. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "He flung the exams twice and gave up". We should flung this article and delete it as promotional puffery. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for doing this in the middle of this AfD but I have just gone ahead and culled the complete biography and rewritten it from top down using the most reliable sources and the most notable achievements of this individual, including his receiving the 2014 Guinness World Record for most cane illusions and his 2014 Merlin Award from the International Magicians Society. Purely my opinion that it looks encyclopaedic in its current form now, given that I've rewritten it to adhere to WP:ARTIST. Maybe editors could suggest how it looks in its current form (it needs to be moved to a correct title; can I do that in the middle of this Afd?). Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It now hinges on the status of a Guinness record for doing something totally unimportant and the Merlin Award which our article describes as "lack[ing] much of the oversight that enhance the credibility of awards in other industries". I am sticking with Delete unless there is anything more credible. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Philafrenzy, I am new to this process so am actually still learning. So I hope you don't mind my requesting clarification as I don't understand views sometimes and realise I might make mistakes. My apologies in advance for any mistakes in my arguments. When I wanted to participate in Afds, one helpful administrator told me that the Afd process works based on quoting of policies and guidelines and not on personal views. Therefore I quoted WP:ANYBIO above (A person may be notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour..."). In my view, by WP:ANYBIO, this biography qualifies easily as the Guinness award is a well known and significant award of honour. As much as I know, cane illusions are really tough – comparatively, one might wish to criticise Guinness World record holders for longest moustache; but irrespective, these are well known awards nevertheless. Similarly, I quoted WP:ARTIST (A person may be notable if "the person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention"). The multiple, indepth coverage received by this individual in multiple news reports in my view qualifies for significant critical attention. Moreover, none of the statements in the current biography are unencyclopaedic in my view. So I am confused. Should we be commenting in Afds based on our perception or should these guidelines be quoted? Please don't mind my questions. I am actually confused. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARTIST is for "authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals". i.e. figures in culture, not magicians. I am sorry to say that in my opinion a Guinness record is not a "significant award or honor". That means the Nobel Prize, winning the Victoria Cross, and similar awards, not doing "the most cane reveal illusions in one minute", which is a form of achievement but not one that is significant. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point here Philafrenzy. Last week I noticed that there is a forum on Wikipedia that has editors commenting on sources. You would of course already know about it. It is called reliable sources noticeboard. I think I will take your point of whether being awarded a Guinness World Record is or is not a significant award out there and request for some comments from other editors. Hope it's appropriate to do that. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really because that is not what that board is for. There is no doubt that the Guinness book is a reliable source for who holds one of their records. What I am saying here is that the record itself doesn't matter. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I have already posted the query there. Let's anyway see what editors comment there. I have to thank you for the views you have presented. They do open up new perspectives. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For lack of notability. The guide we would use here is WP:ENT, and the subject fails that. Not all Guinness awards are notable. "The most cane reveal illusions in one minute" would qualify as that, and the "Merlin Award" is also not significant enough on its own. Scr★pIron^IV 19:14, 23 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. No evidence has been presented during this discussion to show that the requirements of WP:GNG have been met. Therefore, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

34 for 40 Trans-Americas Ride[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT . I count a total of maybe 4 news stories, all of them local to the subject, and almost routine in their level of interest. It is only hypothetically a Guinness World Record; they did not did not certify it or associate themselves with it. Mostly seems to be based on inherited notability from Pat Tillman. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best as this is questionable solid for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but mention the ride in Pat Tillman As much as i don't like to (vote to) delete articles that have a charitable meaning, as per nom it does fail on notability. A summarised version on the Pat Tillman article may be more appropriate. Nordic Dragon 11:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Decent- Keep and Rename. In as much as there appears to be such a ride and there is a perviously established record, the article should be about the Trans-Americas Ride not this particular running of it. Change the article title accordingly and edit the content to reflect the notable nature of this particular attempt. This might spur someone to research the origins of the ride and expand on its history. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 19:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 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 Keep. Consensus is he meets POLITICIAN & GNG, (No disrespect to ST but I really can't understand the !vote so I'm closing this as such.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lawless[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTRESUME. ambassadors are not inherently notable . there is a lot of coverage for a fight victim of the same name but nothing indepth about this individual. let's see if the usual suspect turns up at this discussion. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can be a better convincing article as this article is currently questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though I am the article creator), there are sources from a number of Australian newspapers, Lawless has been the resident ambassador to three countries. These factors indicate notability per the GNG. However on a technical reading, NBIO states that "Politicians ... who have held international ... offices" are presumed notable, an ambassadorial position is international and they (in absence of a specific bit for diplomats) are usually considered politicians. While this is not directly showing notability, the page view stats show that it is a regularly viewed page (even before the AfD nomination). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE is not a reason for keeping. Secondly for the purposes of Wikipedia there is no inherent notability given to ambassadors. In fact many have been deleted. Being an ambassador to 3 countries is not a criterion for notability . LibStar (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that either of those things were specific reasons to keep the article. I said that it meets GNG, the other stuff is just in addition to that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per reasons given by @Callanecc:. This subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 07:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notable per Callanecc and Kagundu. Satisfies GNG and BIO. POLITICIAN now contains no words to the effect that being an ambassador is not an international office. Whether ambassadors have been deleted in the past is irrelevant, as stare decisis does apply at AfD. James500 (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG.--TM 16:53, 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 keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete an article. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 15:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SRT Tomahawk[edit]

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

Notability. This does not seem to be a 'real car', merely something that exists in a video game. Also WP:TOOSOON; 'In production by 2035. TheLongTone (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy as it seems this article is not yet fully blossomed. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Fiat Chrysler announces SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo for video game". Detroit News. 29 May 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
^ "SRT Tomahawk Vision: Gaming the system". Kbb.com. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
^ "Driving the SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo". Road & Track. 3 June 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
^ "SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo is a virtual hypercar worth drooling over". Mashable. 2 June 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
^ "SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo has all the Active Aero". Motor Trend. 29 May 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2016.

Keep per the research by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). The coverage in The Detroit News, Kelley Blue Book, Motor Trend, and the other sources demonstrates that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources have been found, as shown above, I think WP:GNG is passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO any source that would write about such a witless idea is ipso facto not 'reliable', clearly having there head somewhere around the juncltion of coln and small intestine. I cannot see how this is worth more than a mention in the article on the video game. But of course Wikipedia clearly favours trivia over substance.TheLongTone (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 15:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Adult Probation & Parole[edit]

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

Non-notable justice agency. Certainly they are important, but I find no evidence of notability, nor is there any claim or support for notability in the article. | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the parole agency of an entire state should be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Necrothesp's reasoning. SJK (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 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. Userfy remains possible on request. Sandstein 21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Wappers[edit]

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

I don't see anything in this bio to make him notable. Fails WP:SOLDIER, just seems to be a soldier who fought Gbawden (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft & userfy at best as Books and browsers found some links and the article seems acceptable so we can save it for now, no serious needs of deletion. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not proven. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:57, 23 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. Seems to me to meet the general notability guidelines; although it could still be said that relatively few of the sources focus specially on her. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Menon[edit]

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

inadequate notability, with the article supported by mere notices of unreliable sources connected with her employer. "Best bysiness news anchor" is not a award that imples notability . DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently better satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 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 18:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the reference states the importance of the article and it Fails Wikipedia:GNG. JackTracker (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known journalist. Secondary sources suffice to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that Nom performed WP:BEFORE or that any of the editors above searched for notability, beyond looking at the page. Seek and ye shall find. True, India is a tad retro in re sexism, so some of the coverage of her carer comes in the form of articles like 5 Hottest Female Indian Journalists [10]; also better stuff [11]. search a little, the coverage is there. e.g. this: [12] profile in The Hindu. And remember please, it's not the coverage on the page that counts , it's WP:NEXIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the good sources E.M.Gregory found, and found a few myself, which are now in the article. I did a little cleanup, too. She's covered over time and passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:GNG, which is now reflected in a well sourced article thanks to E.M.Gregory and Megalibrarygirl. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 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 keep. I was choosing between no consensus and keep; it is borderline, and I have chosen keep just because the later votes are all keep. In any case, the article will not be deleted for now.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Berking[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a psychologist and academic, making no real or properly sourced claim of notability for it — it's really little more than a straight repost of his own CV, and is sourced exclusively to a PDF of, guess what, his own CV. This is not how a person gets a Wikipedia article. He might qualify if something substantive and reliably sourced could be written about him — but Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, so nothing claimed here entitles him to keep an article that's written and sourced like this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the links above? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Clinical psychologist with a few publications. Appears to fail GNG. Doesn't appear to qualify as an academic. Happy to listen to arguments to the contrary. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as the Professor of Psychology at Erlangen University would seem convincing and notable enough for an article. If not, then delete I suppose if the current article is still questionable. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Writer of major textbooks is German and English. 3rd party verification needs to be added for the publications. His official CV is fine for the rest. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has written textbooks, but are they "major"? Evidence based on academic cites or otherwise would be appreciated. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An h-index of 20 (in a highly cited field) plus the books passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:28, 23 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. Mackensen (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teddybears (TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:RPRGM and WP:GNG. Couldn't find a single source. User with 5 edits removed PROD yet didn't present evidence this is notable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources anywhere, definitely fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This show ran for two years on the U.K's 1st or 2nd most popular channel ITV so it must have had good ratings, should pass WP:GNG. wil look for RS.Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note your conditional !vote pending RS which were never presented. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable TV series. All I could find for proof that the show ever existed was its IMDb page and a bunch of clips uploaded to YouTube. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generic as all heck Teletubbies clone (an ep I found on YouTube even ripped off Bananas in Pajamas dialogue; creatively bankrupt is putting it mildly with this one), but it had a national run on ITV; notability is clinched even if most don't remember it now. Nate • (chatter) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal notability at best, yet no references are provided. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I distinctly remember that this programme generated some controversy when it was found that children were being scared by the bears because they had human eyes (!!). It was certainly mentioned on the news at the time; a cursory search of the BBC News website didn't reveal anything, but the story may have predated the introduction of their full website. I'll have a look tonight to see if I can find anything online. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything in print either. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes. Here's the controversial eyes. :) Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and draft & userfy if needed as there is nothing convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -this is the kind of case where we aren't going to find much coverage online since it's from before newspapers went digital and I'm guessing none of us can be bothered to go to a newspaper archive to get better sources. But a show with a multi-series run on national TV is clearly going to be notable. WP:TVSERIES criteria for notability says: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)" While it does say that "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone" its example of a show on a major network that doesn't meet notability is "a national television program...cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage" which doesn't seem to fit this case. Blythwood (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but the fact is no coverage whatsoever can be found for a show that supposedly aired for 3 years. Where is the article content based from? I am baffled at how such a show doesn't even have a TV print listing to back this information. WP:TVSERIES is simply trumped by a complete lack of sources. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your concerns, but it's quite obvious that this is not a hoax. I have removed a section that seemed to have the most issues and was unsourced. In addition, I have found a source: a tie-in book for the series, which was apparently also based on a series by Susanna Gretz (many used books websites show its cover which shows characters from the series). If you look through a search for her on Amazon, you see many others (some apparently not originally tie-ins but many with an 'as seen on TV' tag). Blythwood (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 01:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to close this as delete because the burden of proof had not been met. However, I believe a stronger consensus against WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:Clearly notable has yet to be reached that would keep this out of a 'no consensus' closure. Mkdw ^talk 01:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very difficult to find any meaningful sources referencing this show. NickCT (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently had a complete season and more on national television, and is not a hoax apparently. That's all that is needed; it is going to be notable. do ncr am 02:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "all that is needed". Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED just because it was on television. In fact, at the very top of WP:N it states, "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Mkdw ^talk 01:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true that without suitable sources, this might be thought of as a hoax, but, as someone said, this was before newspapers were made digital and finding sources for it is actually gonna be difficult. Maybe someone can get sources of the schedule used by ITV to verify this exact show appeared. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Obviously fails WP:GNG. All I could find for proof that this show exists was clips of it on YouTube. And even if it didn't fail GNG, it should be noted that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already !voted above. Mkdw ^talk 16:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. "Teddies ready for telly war". Daily Record. 1997-12-11. Archived from the original on 2016-02-20. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  The Teletubbies are preparing for battle - with a bunch of teddybears.
  ITV, impressed by the success of the toddlers' show is launching a rival.
  It will feature five teddies William, Sara, Louise, Robert and Charles, who all wear brightly-coloured furry suits.
  The Teletubbies' massive success has spawned a hit record and money-spinning videos, books and toys.
  Now ITV want a slice of the action.
  Although they deny The Teddybears is a direct competitor, there are quite a few similarities.
  The bears feast on hot cross buns, honey, pancakes, jelly and icecream, compared to the Teletubbies' favourites tubby toast and tubby tustard
  And they sing a "jolly little ditty" called The Teddybear Song which could one day make the charts like the Teletubbies current number one hit, Say Eh-Oh.
  But The Teddybears, based on books by Susanna Gretz and Alison Sage, is aimed at older children. The series starts on January 5.
2. "TV bears in town". Bristol Post. 1999-10-16. Archived from the original on 2016-02-20. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  THE Teddybears, the furry superstars from Children's ITV, are heading for Bristol during the half-term holiday.
  Fans of the show, one of the most popular pre-school programmes on TV, will be able to meet and greet their favourites at The Mall shopping centre at Cribbs Causeway, on Monday, October 25, from 10am.
  The Teddybears - Charles, Sara, Louise, Robert and William - have their own dog, Fred, a Dalmatian.
  They are based on the books by Susanna Gretz and Alison Sage and have become a huge hit with young viewers, taking some 64 per cent of the target audience.
3. "Playing a Teddybear is a picnic for Louise". Buckinghamshire County Publications. 1998-01-24. Archived from the original on 2016-02-20. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  Sam Fryer meets Stokenchurch actress Louise Conran SARA bear is extremely organised. Louise Conran, the 23-year-old who plays her, is not.
  The Teddybears have been hyped as ITV's answer to the Teletubbies, and, at first glance, their huge, brightly coloured, furry costumes make them look very similar.
  The Teddybears, however, have been in the hearts and minds of children in this country for nearly 30 years, thanks to the very popular books written by Susanna Gretz and Alison Sage.
  Louise Conran, from Stokenchurch, is one of the five actors who managed to get inside a coveted Teddybear costume.
  ...
  Media coverage of the Teddybears has been intense since the success of the Teletubbies, with comparisons between the two shows prompting newspapers and television shows to beg for interviews. All five Teddybears appeared on Richard and Judy recently.
  ...
  Another series of the show might begin filming at the end of the year, depending on the success of this series.
4. Young, Graham (2001-09-03). "Switch On: Teddybears (Carlton, 3.30pm)". Birmingham Mail. Archived from the original on 2016-02-20. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  There's a whole raft of new children's shows to look out for at this time of year.
  Back for a daily 13-part series, and based on the popular books by Susanna Gretz and Alison Sage which have delighted young children for more than 30 years, Teddybears once again features the exploits of five colourful bears and their dog, Fred, as they go about their daily lives at No. 8 Green Street, Bearbridge.
5. Snoddy, Raymond (1999-04-05). "ProVen hopes $150m fund will be child's play". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-02-20. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  PROVEN Private Equity, the rights and merchandising company that controls the destiny of the TV puppet Sooty, is planning to launch a $150 million (Pounds 93 million) fund in Britain and America this month.
  Gordon Power, who spun off the business from Guinness Mahon, is believed to be working on the details of one of the largest funds to concentrate on children's TV characters and merchandising rights.
  Apart from Sooty, ProVen has rights through Link Licensing to characters such as Barbie, the doll that is still going strong after 40 years, and Teddybears, the successful children's series on ITV.
6. Trapp, Roger (1998-11-22). "Barbie's booming business: Claire Derry - as the head of Link Licensing - is the woman behind a thousand spin-offs". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2016-02-20. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  Moreover, a children's series, Teddybears, based on a collection of books by Susanna Gretz, will start in January and Link is already developing toys, books and other products connected to it.
7. Bushell, Gary (1997-12-17). "Call this comedy? You must be having laugh - Bushell on the Box". The Sun. Archived from the original on 2016-02-20. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  TEDDYBEARS aren't the only ITV rival to the Teletubbies. Word is LWT are working on the Tele-Tarbies, five chubby little chappies who wander over a lush green golf course in checkered trousers saying "Ho-ho, is that the one?"
  There's Tarby, Lynchy, Ronnie, Parky and Brucie.
8. Goddard, Lexie (1999-09-02). "Branding and Licensing: London hosts license show - The September launch of Brand and License '99 in London will provide a wealth of knowledge for marketers". Marketing. Haymarket Media Group. Archived from the original on 2016-02-20. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  A good introduction to the licensing industry is The A-Z of Licensing, aworkshop led by Claire Derry, managing director of Link Licensing. Derrywill team up a licensee and retailer to guide newcomers through the licensing process from selecting the right partner to avoiding legal pitfalls. Link’s stand will showcase new Barbie fashions, its range of Lord's cricket gifts and Teddybears, the ITV children's series with merchandising links to Harper Collins (books), VCI (videos) and Tex UK (bedding).
9. "Television". Animation World Magazine. Animation World Network. February 2000. Archived from the original on 2016-02-20. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  London-based Link Entertainment Television has sold the rights to Teddybears to U.S.-based Trio Channel, a new satellite channel broadcast on Direct TV and TCI Hits. Trio's 26 episode purchase comes on the heals of another recent deal for Link with Canada's SCN for all 52 episodes of the lovable bears television adventures.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Teddybears to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Atlantic306 (talk · contribs) and Hassocks5489 (talk · contribs), who said they would look for sources. Cunard (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great work by Cunard (talk · contribs) in finding RS, and improving the article. Confirming my earlier keep vote.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Atlantic306 says above, the sources found by Cunard (which had eluded me in my search) indicate that the notability criterion for TV programming is met. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 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. joe decker ^talk 07:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gokul Ramakrishnan[edit]

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

Article about a director of one film. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject satisfies WP:DIRECTOR. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Subject has little coverage in the media [13] but not enough to qualify for a BLP and he has also only directed only one film. Meatsgains (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure what criteria under WP:DIRECTOR this guy would meet. NickCT (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable as a creative professional. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:49, 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 keep. joe decker ^talk 07:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republia times[edit]

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

Non-notable flash game. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable game with insignificant coverage in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing any real coverage. NickCT (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google search showed several reliable sources reporting on the game, and it was nominated for the Games for Change Awards. I've expanded the article quite a bit and looks a lot better now. Oh, and I also moved it to the actual title The Republia Times. --Soetermans. T / C 10:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now that reliable sources have been added to the article on this game, I think WP:GNG is passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mackensen:, @Meatsgains: and @NickCT:, I was wondering if you still feel the same way since my edits. --Soetermans. T / C 09:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still unsure about the breadth of coverage, but I wouldn't have nominated the current version of the article. Mackensen (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess this is the best the article can achieve... I think redirecting to Papers, Please is not appropriate either. Maybe recreate Lucas Pope? Using the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, it looks like there's more information about the person. --Soetermans. T / C 15:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. The recent expansion and addition of RS definitely improved the quality of the page. I struck through my previous vote and now say weak keep. Meatsgains (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because it's sourced well and is well written. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now RSs have been added. Meets GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. As a copyright violation, which seems to be uncontested. Sandstein 21:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Business delegate pattern[edit]

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

This does not appear to be an encyclopedia article; in fact it is more or less a simple copy of the resource used for the reference: [14]. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Content is unencyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyright violation (it probably should have a speedy delete tag). Even if inspection showed a copyvio defense, we don't host pages that are essentially taken from elsewhere. If notability can be shown, someone can recreate an encyclopedic article (without source code) like those in the current "See also". Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be part of a series of articles on an aspect of software. Even if problematic on its own, it needs to be considered in context, so no delete until then I suggest. It does need work though. Aoziwe (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, the main resource for the article is Oracle docs because that pattern belongs to them basically and currently. So, I had to use that as a main resource, and a few other resouces. Guy, do you have any idean about what a design pattern is? mmmm, for the copyvio thing, just improve the article by providing a simplied version if it is possible. You guys are not much helping the community much as I believe, just criticizing others much. And, it might be important to include source code while describing a pattern. Oh dear dear, please refer the technical stuff more. Anyway, I cannot waste much time on creating articles. Why don't you guys, create or improve articles instead of criticizing to get the community attention, and just always following someone else's passimistic arguments as a pattern. best luck you all. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
what a joke? delegation pattern can be an article, but business delegate pattern cannot be. ha ha ha. wastage of my time too. Shevonsilva (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, guys, I found another link for business delegate pattern, that is https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Delegate. Why do you guys stop growing of wikipedia??? (if something is wrong, improve it instead of deleting) Shevonsilva (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edzperanto[edit]

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

Non notable pun. TheLongTone (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best actually because this is questionable for a better applicably notable encyclopedia article, unlikely solid enough yet. Keep or at best Merge to Raymond Schwartz as Books particularly found a few links suggesting this can be kept. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly insignificant. We're not a pun dictionary. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with DGG. Insignificant, particularly as far as English speakers are concerned. There is an article Edzperanto in the Esperanto Wikipedia. It cites only the same dead link to the Schwartz poem that is in this article and which I have just tagged as a dead link. If it belongs anywhere, an article on this term belongs in the Esperanto Wikipedia. Also see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It seems that little, if anything, can be found or sourced in English about this other than its definition and the poem. Donner60 (talk) 04:59, 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 keep. Regardless of sources all high/secondary schools are keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Was PROD'd, but the PROD template was removed by Beebek bhurtel. —me_and 16:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The only sources provided are a Facebook and Twitter page for the school. I wasn't able to find anything else when I did a search. See the talk page of this discussion for further issues I have that don't belong in this thread. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES on the basis of the school's appearance in the Jhapa District Education Office's table of aggregate examination results that I have added as a reference. That provides a level of verification albeit rather thin to support an article. There are claims in the article which need to be confirmed or deleted, via normal editing. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not withdrawing: Given AllyD's new source, SCHOOLOUTCOMES suggests this page should remain, given it's a high school that has independent evidence that it exists. I disagree with SCHOOLOUTCOMES on this one, though, since SCHOOLOUTCOMES directly references WP:NORG which is very clear that the school is not notable simply because it exists. I probably wouldn't have nominated the article if I'd seen AllyD's source, given SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but I can't withdraw anyway due to C.Fred's delete comment. —me_and 13:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Devkota Memorial Higher Secondary School ; its now a part of that school. (but that article will need some sources). We made the rule NORG, and we can make exceptions. High schools have been consistently an exception for 7 years now. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find out about that? That would change everything. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are pretty liberal with allowing school articles to remain, per the aforementioned WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Thanks to AllyD for finding that source. The only question I have is whether it's now part of Devkota Memorial. If it is, then we should merge. If not, then the article either remains or gets merged into another article (district, city, etc.) Either way, a merge discussion means the material is staying around but we're just deciding where to put it, so that changes my !vote to keep. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AllyD's source that verifies that this is a high school. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Oak Island#Triton alliance. Sandstein 21:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borehole 10-x[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:GEOFEAT. A single excavation done in 1970 on Oak Island by Triton Alliance, a non-notable business group. Content could possibly be merged into Oak Island and/or related articles if more reliable sources are found. Shearonink (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The potential notability of this borehole certainly relates to the part of the article that discusses lost treasure and pseudoscience, and the borehole is particularly prominently featured in the television series The Curse of Oak Island. The borehole has certainly achieved more notability than what is obvious from the characterization above. However, that doesn't necessarily mean there needs to be a separate article about it. As the nominator says, it may be preferable to collect information about this legend into fewer articles rather than having separate articles about individual elements of the story. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I first came upon this article the thing that kind of struck me funny was that the borehole has an article but the group that created it does not... Per WP:GNG it doesn't appear that this individual man-made feature on Oak Island has had independent, multiple reliable sources assessing/describing it in detail, delineating its notability as it relates to Oak Island, etc. Merging the present content into the parent article of Oak Island would preserve the content & sources. Shearonink (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep For why the bore was made and pseudoscience, etc., not the bore hole itself. But it does need much better referencing. Aoziwe (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oak Island#Triton alliance, where it seems adequately discussed. I can see the point of a redirect, but there is no reason for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DGG's solution above seems very fair to me, agree that there is no need for a separate article. Shearonink (talk) 16:59, 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. Sandstein 21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

208 Talks of Angels[edit]

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

The sheer volume of "references here" (which include a number of "twitter" and "facebook" links, among many others) makes me think we have a case of WP:CITEOVERKILL. Is there real independent and non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (not counting twitter, et al.)?? If so, which one are they? KDS4444^Talk 15:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

208 Talks of Angels

Well, you want to say that Alan Cross (http://ajournalofmusicalthings.com/russian-band-records-with-pearl-jam-drummer-and-who-keyboardist/)

Newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/pop/kramms-hits/hoerproben/kramms-hits-when-she-cried-von-208-talks-of-angels-11992864.html)

BBC interview (http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/multimedia/2014/06/140630_bbseva_angels_band.shtml)

or The Guardian note (http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jul/31/reviewanything-this-week-a-t-shirt-a-man-screaming-jeremy-corbyns-face-and-more)

are not reliable sources? If these are not reliable - what sources are reliable?

Please, remove your notification and this discussion dear friend. Live and let others live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suffocator (talk • contribs) 12:57, 9 February 2016‎

A deletion discussion is not an opportunity for "live and let live" argument (see WP:MERCY). Your first link is to a personal website written by someone named Alan Cross— it appears to be written by him alone, with no editorial oversight. Also, the article could not be more cursory: it is one paragraph in which, granted, he does mention the band. But a one-paragraph article on a personal website does not carry much weight for a notability argument. The second link you have provided, to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, isn't a "newspaper", it's another website, and it's a single paragraph which only mentions this band in its title, nowhere in the paragraph's text! (which seems to be a only brief musing by the author on the nature of Russian rock music). The third link you provided is to an article titled "Review Anything" which also includes a review of a McDonald's tee-shirt, a review of an image of Spongebob Squarepants, and a review of a musician screaming for 15 seconds (I kid you not). Though this happens somehow under the "culture" section of the Guardian should be regarded as humorous, not evidence of notability. If this is the best that can be produced to show evidence of notability for this particular band, then the scale is not tipping in its favor yet. Also: I am sorry, but I cannot "remove" my nomination of this article for deletion: now that it has been nominated, the nomination is expected to run its course, one way or the other. KDS4444^Talk 21:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for what it's worth , the online Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is the web version of the famous newspaper. According to thedeWP article on it, the webedition is independently edited, but it has much more authority than just a blog. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Ok, I will grant you that, DGG... though I think you will agree with me that the article in this newspaper still does not cover the subject non-trivially and probably still doesn't, by itself, qualify the band as notable, yes?) KDS4444^Talk 00:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately made no comment on notability--it helps to have some feel for the subject, and rock bands is one where I don't. For example, I do not know in this field what sort of a review constitutes trivial and what constitutes significant coverage. But reading the FA article, the paragraph is apparently an introduction to the audio of a song, and I notice that we have articles on only 3 of the first 20 artists who are covered in that column, linked at the bottom. I have not looked at the other references. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now did look at the BBC Russia ref, which is also a brief paragraph. The Guardian review is in a section devoted to miscellania which readers requestthem to review. Neither are impressive as sources.

Tentative Delete on the basis of the above. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft and userfy at best because this particularly currently seems questionable overall, looking through the listed sources, with none of them imaginably better convincing for a currently better article. SwisterTwister talk 01:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 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 keep. Seems notable given the sources that Cathry and Ymblanter have since added; however the articles in other Wikipedia do not necessarily show notability either without actually checking the sources provided there (bit harder since most are in Russian). (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splean[edit]

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

After eleven years (!) I am not seeing enough here to warrant a stand-alone article on this subject. Existence alone does not equal notability. Single Russian reference (at http://www.splean.narod.ru) lacks independence. KDS4444^Talk 15:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Arved (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, this is an opportunity to provide evidence and put forth argument. Simply saying "Keep" does neither. Please see WP:JUSTAVOTE. KDS4444^Talk 21:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has versions in 15 languages and a commons Category. While i agree that it could use more reliable sources obviously notable. Arved (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, the nominator apparently did not even attempt to check whether reliable sources are available. I spent five minutes and added two reliable sources to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is very well-known band in Russian-speaking regions. I added this source https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=kd4zCgAAQBAJ and it is possible to extract more information from this and other sources. Cathry (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is very famous and popular in the whole area of Eastern Europe. In nominator some bias to the Russian rock?--Кориоланыч (talk) 22:12, 23 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, notable according to criteria--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mumiy Troll[edit]

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

Non-notable Russian band. This could probably have gone under G11, but am bringing here for a more thorough discussion. KDS4444^Talk 15:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious T***l AfD request keep Arved (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck your comment - Please comment on the article not the contributor!, If I see you make another attack like that again I'll have you blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 00:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)`[reply]

I didn't comment on the contributor but on his contribution. The Article exists in 18 languages. So it does not require much research to gasp that the band is notable. The AfD-originator was on a crusade on that day with several similar worded AfDs without substance. Arved (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either way it's still commenting on the contributor, If it's notable then it's the "!Keepers" job to find sources .... Not !vote on the basis of "it's a troll afd", Again I've struck your !vote as replacing the letter O with an aterisk isn't any better ...... Just overwrite your !vote with sources..... –Davey2010^Talk 12:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously it is not so obivious what is wrong with this AfD, The band was an ESC contestant, is frequently touring the US and Europe; Played at the last Olympics in Sochi. Has Press coverage (Just click on the link above) and even has a bar named after the band. And he claims it is "non-notable". The Contributor obviously has not even read the article before putting it on Afd. How do you call this? Arved (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mumiy Troll has represented Russia at the Eurovision Song Contest 2001. It is quite popular in Russia and is definitly notable. — Ace111 (talk) 22:44, 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. joe decker ^talk 07:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Abrar[edit]

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

No notability Prof TPMS (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : 1 film as a child actor. Most of the coverage is in the film reviews. Remaining search results are just passing mentions. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current article especially with only one work is unlikely better notable for the entertainers notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 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. Mackensen (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

André A. Jackson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm really struggling to find the high-quality, independent, in-depth sources that we need for a BLP on this person, under both the Andre Jackson name and the clan name, M’Zée Fula-Ngenge. Unless some can be found, I'd recommend deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Available sources are suspect. Smells like a partial or complete real-world hoax, but not notable enough as a hoax to warrant an article here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although the only still active AfDer DGG, who voted Keep in December 2008, I believe the fact the company is now deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JFPI Corporation) suggests he must also not be notable and there's basically nothing to suggest better notability convincingly. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too have been unable to verify. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The article's edit history shows material has been constantly added and removed. For example, the article looks quite different at the moment to 260817055 and 609022385. Also at the second AfD, in 2008, two editors thought this person was the head of a large company, therefore notable, see AfD2. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:27, 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.

[1] "Fiat Chrysler announces SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo for video game". Detroit News. 29 May 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2016.

[2] "SRT Tomahawk Vision: Gaming the system". Kbb.com. Retrieved 16 February 2016.

[3] "Driving the SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo". Road & Track. 3 June 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2016.

[4] "SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo is a virtual hypercar worth drooling over". Mashable. 2 June 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2016.

[5] "SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo has all the Active Aero". Motor Trend. 29 May 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]