Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 February	3 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 01:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merupu (2016 film)[edit]

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

Completely uncited article (tagged as such for several months) about film only claimed to start filming "soon"--fails WP:NFF. Not listed on claimed director's or production-company's IMDB. DMacks (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

writer:(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)

and WP:INDAFD: "Merupu (2016)" "మెరుపు" "Santosh Srinivas" "Kona Venkat" "Allu Arjun" "Ram Charan"

Delete per failing WP:NFF. While the topic of this planned film is sourcable, all I have been able to really find is info about casting and its audio launch, and no confirmation that it has begun filming. This makes this TOO SOON. We can allow a sourced resurrection when filming begins. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no confirmation that the shooting of the film has yet begun, fails WP:NFF. Could find only trivial coverage from reliable sources, fails WP:NF—UY Scuti ^Talk 10:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Language Performing Arts Company[edit]

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

Salt Lake City-based performing arts organization. Outside of the expected coverage in the Arts section of local news, nothing much else to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I do not see how it passes WP:ORG standards. only (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as this is questionably notable considering from its locality. SwisterTwister talk 01:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and SALT; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prem Khan (actor). Drmies (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prem (film actor)[edit]

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

This is an non-notable actor who is trying to 'add himself' into films cast listing, fake credit. Ste moc 23:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you give any examples?Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306, please note my comments below. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this better satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt - This is a continuation of a promotional campaign. Similar flimsy articles were created at Prem Khan and Prem Khan (actor) and those articles were speedied into oblivion and salted. I suspect the creator of this most recent article, Devil7592686.love, to be a sock of Washim Rahman, who previously wasted valuable community time attempting to promote this person. SPI has been opened. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that an AfD was already done on this subject and the result was delete. Please see this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as completely unreliable.Thanks for the info Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per above. I've requested page protection, as multiple IPs within the same range have removed the AfD template from the article. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --77.37.134.66 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since AfDs are not votes, you're going to need a strong argument. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this is no where near as bad or as extensive as this WP:SELFPROMOTION of this kind is not needed. Should this person become known for their acting in the future then a new article can be created. MarnetteD|Talk 20:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Active adult retail[edit]

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

The article tries very hard to appear well-sourced, without actually being so. Many of the citations are broken links, blogs, personal sites, are not reliable[1] or do not actually mention "Active adult retail." Much of the article reads like an essay.

I came across the article as a paid editor making sure that research from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) is accurately represented on Wikipedia. This particular article appears to be trying to lend credibility to this concept by citing support from MGI that does not actually exist. I presume this report is what the article intended to cite, which is about baby boomers, but like much of the source material does not mention this related concept. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 21:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article is certainly questionable, no signs of improvements. Notifying DGG who may be interested to analyze this article's contents. SwisterTwister talk 01:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is probably a notable topic, but the first part of this is direct copyvio from http://activeadultretail.com, and the remainder reads as if it similarly is copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was with Speedy Deleted as A7 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Philip Almanza[edit]

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

No "significant" roles as required by WP:NACTOR. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 21:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could have been speedied. No credible assertion of notability. Likely vanity article. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:NACTOR; further, there is almost no coverage of the subject. /wiae /tlk 23:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per reasons above. Also may be worth looking into the potential socking on the talk page. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Solar deity. Personally I would've !voted Merge myself but don't see the point in piling on for the sake of it so I'm Merging. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun in culture[edit]

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

The scraps of information here are already covered in the Solar deity article. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Solar deity. That covers the subject much better, but this article may have a little content that needs merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, agreed. πr² (t • c) 05:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as this seems best. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Narayan Dube[edit]

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

Sorry for the long read, but as you will see, this nomination requires a detailed explanation, because some news outlets have also fallen for this hoax.

This is a hoax, originally uncovered by French Wikipedia User:MelAntipam at Talk:Bombay_Talkies#Rajnarayan_Dube_and_Bombay_Talkies. For the uninitiated, here is a summary of that discussion:

Bombay Talkies is a historic Indian film studio that shut down in the 1950s. According to all reliable sources that have not fallen for this hoax (e.g. pre-2010 news stories, books etc.), this studio had only two founders: Himanshu Rai and Devika Rani.
In 2010 ("three years ago" from 2013), a hitherto unknown 'actor-writer-director' Abhay Kumar decided to launch a new production house.
That year, an anon IP user added the name "Rajnarayan Dube" to the list of founders in the Bombay Talkies article. Unfortunately, this change went unnoticed, and was replicated by blogs and mirrors that rely on Wikipedia for information.
In 2011, Abhay Kumar announced to media that the planned new studio would be a "revival" of the historic Bombay Talkies, which he claimed, was associated with his grandfather. Subsequently, his PR team created the website rajnarayandube.com (and also bombaytalkies.co, which expired a few days ago), which contains details of Raj Narayan Dube's purported role in Bombay Talkies. Since then, this claim has appeared in a few more news stories, which variously mention Raj Narayan Dube as the co-founder, co-owner or main financier of the Bombay Talkies and an important figure in Indian cinema.
In 2015, Abhay Kumar registered a new company under the name "The Bombay Talkies Studio", and announced to media that it was a continuation of the historic Bombay Talkies. This year, a user who is self-admittedly the "digital head at Bombay Talkies Studio" re-wrote the Bombay Talkies Wikipedia article to state that it was still functioning with Abhay Kumar as its owner. (These changes are now undone).

Why is this a hoax?

All the news stories that mention this guy are about the supposed "revival" of Bombay Talkies by Abhay Kumar, and presumably, rely on his account.
There is no mention of this name in any pre-2010 source as the founder / financier / co-owner of Bombay Talkies (or as a notable person in general), which is surprising for for someone who was supposedly a "Pillar of Indian Cinema"
- Raj Narayan Dube
- Raj Narayan Dubey
- R N Dube
- R N Dubey
- Raj Dube
- Raj Dubey
- Rajnarayan Dubey
- Rajnarayan Dube (there is one result dated "Mar 9, 1994" from mapsofindia.com, but please note that this is not date of the page's creation: It's part of "On this day: 9 March 1994" series, and mapsofindia.com routinely sources content from Wikipedia).
The logo of the historic Bombay Talkies that appears in these PR-like news stories is obviously fake. This fake logo contains a photograph of Raj Narayan Dube with the text "Est. 1934". The real logo of the Bombay Talkies (present in the current Wikipedia article) has a photograph of Himanshu Rai.
There are literally hundreds of books about Hindi (and Indian) cinema, and many of them mention Bombay Talkies, Himanshu Rai and Devika Rani. However, none of them mention this Dube guy. Only one book contains a cursory mention of him ("built by Himanshu Rai and Devika Rani,and financed by Rajnarayan Dube"). This book is from 2014 (Spot Girl, fiction), and its mention of Dube is obviously based on the Wikipedia article or news stories about the purported "revival" of Bombay Talkies by Abhay Kumar. utcursch | talk 20:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 20:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Per WP:G3. Not found in any independent source pre-2010. Not found in other wiki. Before being cleaned up, this page contained numerous errors and obviously false information. The sole purpose of this hoax is to provide free publicity to an actor and an upcoming movie. (I came up on this when working on these French pages: (1) and (2). Sorry if I had no right to participate to this debate, I'm not aware of the deletion rules on the English wiki) MelAntipam (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As a hoax,although he might become notorious Atlantic306 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although this is not my familiar area (Indian cinema), this is certainly questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fantastic job @Utcursch and MelAntipam: for this research. This AfD was a better read than most Bollywood FAs and FLs. But i have different doubt now. Although we rely on reliable sources for information on WP cant we put this hoax as hoax in some of the article though no RS has ever called it so? Or else how will the wrong information already out on internet be stopped from spreading? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to find a source stating that somebody does/did not exist :) I guess that all that can be done is to have a few sentences in the Bombay Talkies articles saying : "In the 2010s, Abhay Kumar, a would-be actor, spread a story saying that somebody called RN Dube was instrumental in the creation of Bombay Talkies<we have sources here>. However, there is no reliable source confirming this information and even no source stating that RN Dube ever existed. In addition, several key details of the story are contradicted by Devika Rani's autobiography<link to the book> and Indian cinema historians. Furthermore, there is no official record of the company that would have provided RN Dube's wealth<here a link to the list of all Indian companies created before 1980 - of course, no Dube Industries>." MelAntipam (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, negation cant be proved. But i like the prose you proposed. In that case the article's history can be deleted leaving a locked redirect to Bombay Talkies. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good catch. Yann (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete Claiming as hoax is no small thing, but I have no time to check your apparently robust research. Even of only half true this needs to be cleaned out. Aoziwe (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Mary University Rugby Football Club[edit]

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

WP:Non-notable university rugby club, can't find any sources indicating notability Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:34, 26 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) 19:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hard to see circumstances where a British University sports team would be notable, they are not usually covered in the media. I can't find any independent secondary sources for this at all. JMWt (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie Gerardi[edit]

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

Autobiographical article with no sources. Hama Dryad (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and draft &userfy only if needed as, although this article may seem acceptable, it's actually questionably solid. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delte Many experts think the whole Mars One endevor is a scam. Even if it isn't, we have no way of knowing whether Gerardi will be one of those actually sent to mars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination for deletion withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 08:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Gershenson[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search in Google news reveals coverage from multiple reliable sources like this one in Spanish or this one from El Universal where it is reported he received an award for an app he developed. In google books there are also multiple hits, mainly as author. As an example even if it may not count as an independent source, this book in which he cooperated includes a brief bio. There seems to be enough independent and in depth coverage, and since the article does not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I believe that it meets our general notability guidelines.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I am uncertain how to comment given the field, because the contents above are something but the article still seems questionable. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Six papers with over 100 citations according to Google Scholar. That's enough to show anyone an authority in their subject. Iadd the most cited to the article. the refs above should be added also. Kku, it is not of benefit to add articles as incomplete as this one was and let other people do the necessary work to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination my error. Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur (season 20)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Supposed future season of TV show Arthur. Fails to provide any sources, however, despite WP:TVUP requiring them. I'm unable to find any sources for it and even the Wikia article about it says it's speculation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. An article like this can be created once the season is actually airing, and thus actually sourceable and substanceable — but there's no value in creating a speculative placeholder page to keep the seat warm in advance of the season premiere, especially if the lack of sourceability has stripped the content back down to infobox-only. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, um, any policies that seem to say an article has to have material to exist... Yeah, let's just call it WP:TOOSOON. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'd like to add this: There's no guarantee whatsoever that the show will even make it to Season 20. None whatsoever. Not for this show nor any other no matter how successful. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, season 20 in this instance has already been reached — season 19 aired last year, and the new season is already in production and scheduled but just hasn't started airing yet. The CRYSTAL in this instance isn't about whether S20 will ever happen at all — it will, and we just can't source any substantive details about it yet besides "this is a thing that will happen". Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still, there are some shows that get even fully-produced seasons that never air and the show goes under without airing them (*cough* Here Comes Honey Boo Boo *cough*) ...excuse me. Hacking fit right there - must be that time of year...

It's not likely to happen to Arthur at all, but you never know... Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's barely an article and any necessary content can go to List of Arthur episodes as always. SwisterTwister talk 01:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removable prime[edit]

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

Term made up by article creator. While the phenomenon exists, I can't find a single use of "removable prime" to describe it. Blackguard 17:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this StackExchange posting identifies the phenomenon of prime numbers which remain prime if any digit is removed. OP inquires about a name for it, and truncatable prime is suggested although that's not quite the same thing (refers to removing one specific digit, not any digit). Wolfram has an article about that, but again only discusses removing either the leftmost or rightmost digit. There doesn't appear to be any academic work on this particular sequence of numbers, and as such there don't appear to be any reliable sources for the subject of this article, and that points to deletion. For the sequence, OEIS simply gives "primes remaining prime if any digit is deleted", and a commenter suggests these may be called "super-prime numbers" but that's already something different. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The use of a possibly inappropriate title isn't a reason to delete, if there can be notability in the subject. That's easily remedied by a move. I can't see this sequence of numbers being of any practical use, but much in maths is also of no practical use. It's certainly an interesting phenomenon that I'd never heard of, and it's set me wondering if there is an upper limit - but if no-one much else has been intrigued enough by it to work on it, my interest doesn't make it notable. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. And, like most base-dependent number sequences, I don't think it's very interesting, in contrast to Peridon; besides, WP:ITSINTERESTING isn't a good reason for keeping an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't using 'interesting' in the sense used by mathematicians - just in the sense of 'oddity'. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a commonly used term, and the sequence is not particularly significant. πr² (t • c) 05:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as there are no better convincing signs of keeping. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move: Not notable, at the very least not found anywhere else under that name crh23 (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, or instead merge See http://oeis.org/A034302. No, name is not recognised as far as I can tell. A "thing" with no name can not be all that notable. Merge as an addendum into Truncatable prime perhaps. If kept the name would have to be Numbers n such that n remains prime if any digit is deleted! Aoziwe (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Rumbauskas[edit]

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

fails WP:NOTABILITY - see note below Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is an internet marketer of get rich quick programs. Lots of hype-y websites on the internet about him. The only independent source about him in the current article is a link to the appearance of his book on paperback business book NY TImes bestseller lists (not the general bestseller list - but rather paperback business books). Here is what I found with regard to sources:

google search ten pages out, nothing but fellow-traveller websites hyping his approach
google book search, same thing
Rumbauskas NY Times search nothing
WSJ seach nothing

The prior AFD had only two votes following the nomination. One of the keep !votes was from the WP:SPA account that created the article (see contribs). I do not think this would survive a deletion discussion today. So, delete per WP:GNG. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as although the 1st AfD was keep, there are no further convincing signs of better notability here. Delete for now at best and restart if better later, SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A rationale for deletion is not present in the nomination. A merge has been performed, and the typical action is to then redirect. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scenthound Group[edit]

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

Merge completed. Redirect to Scent hound — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Wilson (meteorologist)[edit]

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

Non-notable TV meteorologist, fails WP:BIO. Refs do not establish notability. ukexpat (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no signs for WP:CREATIVE, and this would be best mentioned at a Weather Channel article. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus for deletion following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masaki Satou (artist)[edit]

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

Not a good sign when all the manga artist's works are redlinked. No sign of notability beyond that. Most searches are for the anime character designer Masaki Sato, although the latter uses different character names. Media arts shows seven works. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having looked at the Japanese version of this article it seems there is more information there but from the google translation it is still not notable by English Wiki standards. I don't know if Google was trying to be funny but the translation said Masaki Satou is a blood type A... Haha ツStacey (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. @Staceydolxx: see blood type in Japanese popular culture. Opencooper (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! You learn something new everyday.. I am not sure I agree with my personality description though!ツStacey (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't bode well for a manga artist on Wikipedia when all of your works appear in red. I were able to find a work of his (not listed here) articled on the French Wikipedia but there he has no article of his own: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakuza_Love_Theory --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Japanese article states he won a "Booby Prize" (basically 3rd place) in the "Gag King" contest, and a Bronze Prize in another contest. So, award-winning, but not first prize. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference on the JA Wikipedia article is a blog entry, delete for failing WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer Weichbrodt[edit]

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

Orphaned biography appears to be WP:VANISPAM (given its creator's username) with all WP:PRIMARY sourcing. While subject may be accomplished, he does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and nor do the two companies listed (think!tank and Management Institut Dortmund) appear to meet WP:COMPANY. The only possible criterion I can see is WP:ANYBIO#1, but it's not clear that his Wissensmanager des Jahres is particularly notable (it appears to have only been issued for a few years) -- and even if it happened to be considered notable, it appears to be better as a list of winners per WP:BLP1E. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable, delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info.com[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since this has been kept twice before, there should be some explanation of what's changed since then. A couple of additional sources from 2004: Chicago Sun Times [3]; Chicago Tribune [4]. And FWIW, in my personal experience their annoying searchbox shows up everywhere. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", ie in-depth coverage of them rather than frequent appearances of their search box. I note the coverage in Chicago of their launch but I think we need a bit more than newspaper reprinting of launch press releases (no disrespect to Chicago papers intended!) Philafrenzy (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have an explanation of what's changed since the last two nominations? Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second keep appears to have been based on the first which was based on the addition of two very brief descriptions of what the site does. We need "significant coverage" that goes beyond noting that something exists and a few words about what it does. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not great, the 2004 sources are significant coverage of what the search engine does, which is what the product here for this company is. It's not great or particularly useful coverage but this search engine itself has coverage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as this is a potential article. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TPI Sound[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable PA / speaker manufacturer. I turned down a CSD A7 because these sort of companies supply to large scale popular events or artists, and hence become notable by that means (eg: Carlsbro, Mackie, Watkins Electric Music), but I can't find any decent sources for this one at all. A complete blank in Sound on Sound (watch out, TPI is a well-used acronym so there are lots of false positives!) is a major red flag. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly nothing to suggest assume better, WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run-of-the-mill regional PA provider who builds their own boxes from 40 year old designs. I probably would have hit this one with the db-spam template myself if I'd seen it first. Being a service provider of a notable event doesn't make a company notable unless the company themselves have been featured in write-ups and/or behind the scenes documentaries. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any good coverage that would satisfy the WP:CORP requirements. /wiae /tlk 23:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kjersti Døvigen[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 15:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per these Norwegian sources. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 21:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per EditorE and per the sources on Google, Plus according to IMDB she's been in over 25 tv shows/films, Sources aren't perfect but I'd say notability's there. –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources above show multiple RS media coverage of the actress .Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as this is still questionable but this may be enough for now. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Movie[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on an unreleased movie, written by one of the actors. No indication that the movie is notable. I failed to find sources verifying key claims. Huon (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

WP:INDAFD: "Vinod Vyas" "Joker Entertainment" "Harbhajan Mann"

Delete for now per being (at kindest) somewhat TOO SOON. While not unsourcable and while format was easy to address, it appears the film was completed but not yet released. We can delete the improved version and resurrect it when we have more... even if only in Hindi. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft & userfy at best as there are currently no better signs of an article. SwisterTwister talk 02:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Düsseldorf School of electronic music[edit]

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

WP:OR no sources, this is a fictional term, made up by a Krautrock fan, and posted here on Wikipedia. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively, create at Wiktionary, delete here. By all appearences this is a neologism-ish term, probably coined in hindsight, yet certainly not fictional:
- 1 "(…) artfully unifying the so-called Düsseldorf School (…)"
- 2 "Another from the Düsseldorf School."
- 3 "(…) the influences of (…) the so-called Düsseldorf School (NEU!, Kraftwerk, La Düsseldorf) can be recognised."
- 4 "The Düsseldorf School – industrial architecture as “anonymous sculpture”"
- 5 "This time the trio pushes us in the Teutonic rhythms of the Düsseldorf School with the fragrances of Mythos' Krautrock style and the robotics rhythms of Kraftwerk."
- 6 "One focus will be on regional scenes such as the Düsseldorf school of electronic in the 1970s with music groups such as Cluster, Neu! And Can"

There's regardless the usual problem that music genre terminology tends to evolve mostly organizally, without authoritative sources. I believe the above selection suffices to establish the existence of the term, but it does not run very far for sourcing any actual claims. Without more general sources turning up that actually assert this as a distinct concept, we will not be getting far in article-writing. And currently there's no real content in the article anyway other than a definition-by-extension. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources to verfiy this. You'd expect at least something to be gleaned from the articles for Kraftwerk and Can, but nothing turns up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas 1982 tornado outbreak[edit]

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

Tornado outbreak whose "article" consists solely of an infobox, with no body text at all — and the infobox also fails to specify where said tornado outbreak took place. Article was tagged for speedy A3 by NeedAGoodUsername, but that was declined on the grounds that there is content in the infobox. Of course I'll withdraw this if somebody can actually add some text to the article, but it's not keepable if it's simply going to linger around in this state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this might be the same as 1982 Christmas tornado outbreak, which places the tornados in Arkansas and Missouri, at the very least. There is brief discussion about these tornadoes in the Monthly Weather Review, at pages 1674 and 1677–1678. However, the articles have differing numbers of tornadoes (66 v 74), the Monthly Weather Review says there were 96 in the month, ABC News and the Washington Post say there was a storm in the region on 24–26 December 1982 with only 29 tornados, and Forbes refers to a "Christmas outbreak of 1982" with 42 tornadoes from 23–25 December 1982. (They're reporting on an email they received, so I'm not sure about how great this source is, but...) /wiae /tlk 15:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per Wiae's search above, there doesn't seem to be enough to verify the content of either article; they're both completely unsourced. (Of course, if we were to delete the other, we'd have to bundle it in first.) ansh 666 03:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cursed Legacy. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Isolation[edit]

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

Fails to meet the "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" of Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Unreleased_material, as the only secondary source given is a short article that just quotes the band's own press release. McGeddon (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cursed Legacy ~~Delete~~: Lack of RS in the article is not necessarily an issue (WP:BEFORE), however an unreleased album with no significant independent coverage fails WP:NALBUMS. For that matter, it's not clear that the band even passes WP:BAND. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 13:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as mentioned and I would've even closed as such because it's that obvious. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Abbott[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and advertorially toned WP:BLP of a sportswoman, making no strong or credible claim of notability under WP:NSPORT. The first discussion was about the same person, but this version is written differently enough that I don't feel comfortable speedying it on that basis — amusingly, that version parked her notability mainly on the NASCAR claims and then passingly mentioned CrossFit as an afterthought, while this version does the exact opposite. But this is sourced only to the subject's own self-published content about herself, citing no reliable source coverage for any of it, and even the claims themselves are vague and not readily measurable against our actual inclusion standards. I suppose it might be possible to write a better-sourced and more substantive and neutral article about her than this, so I'm willing to withdraw this if the article sees improvement before closure — but it's not entitled to stick around looking like this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of her accomplishments, the subject isn't a notable personage. None of the noted 'achievements' confers notability, and even as a group, they amount to someone who's above-average but who still doesn't pass the notability standards. (As a footnote to Bearcat's note on how the article "mirror-images" the original one in focus, it's because (what the article in this version noticably omits) her NASCAR career ended before it began; she did not work on a pit crew at even a single NASCAR race for the named team before being released [5]). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless other RSes turn up, this article doesn't pass the bar. Delta13C (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kachin conflict#Chronology. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 16:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Pangwa[edit]

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

The event is insignificant and minor, and the content is barely a paragraph, which can be moved to the much larger Internal conflict in Myanmar. There is also only a single source, which sometimes fails to load. CentreLeftRight ✉ 05:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Delete: This event is insignificant and the article has only one reference, KACHINNEWS, which is an unreliable source. PhyoWP *click 11:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kachin_conflict#Chronology. It's already mentioned there in 2012 and could use the additional reference. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Burma-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kachin_conflict#Chronology. It would be useful to have a paragraph in this article on each significant battle. This article will make one such paragraph. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and I would've also closed as such because this article has no signs of solid independence. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrion (band)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a band, with no credible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. They reportedly released an EP in 2006 and had 30 songs prepared for their full-length debut album, but the article has never been updated with any real information or sourcing since then (unless you count some unfunny bullshit that I had to revdel for WP:BLP reasons.) As always, a Wikipedia article is not a thing that any band automatically gets to have just because it exists — reliable source coverage has to be present to support it, but there's none of that here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest a minimally better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches combining the band name with any one of the member's names only returns a listing at one Spanish music sight that is apparently in the business of giving free music downloads. Other search results are WP copies or unrelated to the band. Looks like a band that had hopes of being known, but never quite reached that point and was abandoned. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OTH Veterans Services[edit]

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

Borderline speedyable article about a non-notable charitable organization founded by a non-notable rapper whose article is also up for deletion. Zero third party sources to indicate how this organization is notable. Prod was disputed by creator. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed the Colorado Gazette citation isn't about the organization. The only source is the organization's own wordpress "blog" as they call this format. I also found this where a funding of a thousand dollars was sought last November on GoFundMe but only $20 was donated. The goal is noble but the notability doesn't seem to be there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If you travel via way of the editor who created the article---->his sockpuppets---->sockpuppet's user page history, you find the founder of this organization put up this Wikipedia article covering this organization. So allot of WP:COI/WP:PROMOTION/WP:NOTWEBHOST going on here. Zero sources other than himself means this has to go. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bilott[edit]

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

This person seems to be only famous for suing DuPont, which would seem to be a case of BLP1E Gbawden (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 05:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's just a WP:RESUME and list of external links to the articles he's written. The article is devoid of any indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no better signs of better notability aside from its locality. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. This is a duplicate of a currently-open discussion. I have copied relevant comments to the other discussion. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riskdata[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability. Speedied this, but somebody decided that there was acclaim of notability in one of the refs. Presumably the FT one, which is behind a paywall. The other is thinner ~~than a Rizla Blue~~self published. TheLongTone (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: AfD already exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riskdata (2nd nomination). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw. I thought that Twinkle did not commit such solecisms....TheLongTone (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the inventor. Deb (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riskdata[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A search for sources reveals mostly false positives and press releases. While I could find instances of independent coverage, apart from one lone news article from 2003 regarding a company position, none of them appear to be significant coverage required to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can find no significant coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the inventor. Deb (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note - a third discussion was opened at the same time as this thread. I have closed it and moved comments here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found exactly two sources: the company's website, and a press release issued by the company. Fails WP:GNG. Presuming from the headline, the paywalled Financial Times source is about Bernie Madoff and may make a trivial mention of the company, but I can't verify. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again as there are no better signs of this being anything else than a local company, no convincingly better signs of anything else. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage online from WP:RS to suggest notability per WP:CORP. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 15:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spotlight 29 Casino[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines, specifically depth of sources. Most of the citations are to this casino's website, another is an entry about it in a trade magazine, and another is a news story that only mentions this casino as the location of an event. The additional citations tag has been on the page since 2007. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that recently the page has been edited by someone claiming to handle this casino's PR. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources available to satisfy GNG: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Toohool (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Toohool has helpfully provided enough links to confirm that this article meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage was not limited to local or gaming industry press, driven it seems by the affiliation with Trump, at the time. Even after Trump dropped out of any involvement, coverage continued and overall the extent of the coverage seems to me to meet the bar we set for lasting notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the sources, but it's curious that no one added them in 8 or 9 years. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I would've also closed as such because this may be better now....and if not, nominate again if needed. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachna Khanna[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010! I don't find evidence that she meets GNG. Ran for minor political office but wasn't elected. Not notable Gbawden (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. The NBC article is a local article about a solar array which her husband talks about, which also mentions her. The other sources are typical postings in alumni publications, and similar routine bits. The political office she ran for would not have satisfied WP:POLITICIAN, and she did not win anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:POLITICIAN, references are not available to state the importance of this article on Wikipedia. JackTracker (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bozkurt Selvi[edit]

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

I can't see any merit in this one-trick-pony, though it has survived a prod and a speedy. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a 16-year-old student (maybe even 15), who got some recognition for a crayon drawing. This is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this nearly even speedy material, no signs of a better article. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsodus[edit]

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

It looks like failing WP:NVIDEOGAMES Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this better convinces the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a single reliable source. With those images, looks like a promotional page. --Soetermans. T / C 21:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnotable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not received sufficient attention by independent reliable sources; found one article. Mduvekot (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cikos[edit]

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

Non-notable, Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played nor managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macrium Reflect[edit]

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

Unreferenced since created in 2008. Google search just returns a sea of download sites, blog posts, and other unreliable sources. | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a classic fail of WP:NSOFT: only sources are primary, download sites, and review sites (those are only significant coverage if they are not publishing dozens of similar reviews a day). Tigraan (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RationalWiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is pretty well-written, but the substantive content relies almost entirely on primary sources, and it seems likely that RationalWiki hasn't been covered enough to be notable. If we exclude the trivial mentions and primary sources - which seem fine individually, but don't contribute to notability - the only secondary reference that covers RW in detail is here. American Thinker might normally be considered reliable - it's a real publication - but (to be blunt) the article seems like an angry rant and not anything resembling "real journalism".

FWIW, User:David Gerard is the founder of RationalWiki, and he himself has said that it's of questionable notability. Spectra239 (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think its notability is pretty clear between Snopes and other citations. COI Disclosure: I am also a SYSOP for Rationalwiki. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAICT, though, none of the Snopes references describe RationalWiki, they merely quote from it. They don't describe what RationalWiki is, even in a minimal sense of eg. "RationalWiki is a site where skeptics go to hang out." I think this classifies them as "trivial mentions" under WP:GNG. The purpose of the notability guideline, as I understand it, is to ensure that material is verifiable, and facts about RationalWiki can't be verified by citing Snopes if Snopes never describes what RW is. Spectra239 (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as someone heavily involved in RW) we get referred to in the press (including RSes) and by scholars regularly (see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Mentions ) but very few of these are about RW itself. For what that's worth. I don't think there's been an RS directly about RW since 2007 - David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not the founder at all, where on earth did you get that from? [15] - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This blog post describes you as "a current trustee, administrator, host and moderator of [RationalWiki] and also the founder." Obviously that's not a reliable source, my apologies if I got it wrong. Spectra239 (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The blog that calls literally everyone who's ever blocked him on the web a pedophile? I'm afraid my opinion of your grasp of sourcing just went down - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously it isn't a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards; nobody ever claimed it was. Please don't bring in mostly-irrelevant off-wiki disputes, and please don't make personal attacks. You asked, and I answered, because I thought you might want to know if someone was misrepresenting you. You corrected me, and I accept the correction. Let's move on. Spectra239 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me then, did you read the article then? You know, this part? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw that, but it's very common for groups to have co-founders that aren't mentioned. Eg. very few people know that Apple had a third founder (Ronald Wayne). I founded at least one thing with a Wikipedia page, but I'm not mentioned in the article, and I haven't tried to be. In any case, this is an irrelevant tangent. I don't dispute David Gerard's claims about the history of RationalWiki, and Gerard's role is itself mostly irrelevant to notability. Spectra239 (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's been argued before (and upheld) that a whole bunch of trivial mentions can satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. I've never found that a very compelling argument, but, for what it's worth, we sure do have quite a lot of trivial mentions collected here. I guess I'd lean toward keeping this, but maybe there's a place it could be merged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to keep this article. I am currently linking to it from a Wikiversity course I am developing. --Lbeaumont (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even though the mentions are mostly trivial, their high number shows notability. COI: I am a mod at RW. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that RationalWiki is notable enough (it is quite well known within the atheist/skeptic community). It is likely to be of interest to people reading about the modern skeptic movement, if nothing else. Potential COI: I am an infrequent contributor to RationalWiki. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I think it as important as its "sister"(!) article Conservapedia. If primarily primary sources then just tag a such. (Until I read this I had never heard of either so no COI at all.) Looks this has previously survived delete actions, as early as 2008? Perhaps these decision need to be taken into account too? Aoziwe (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the previous action turned it into a redirect, which makes it seem like the article survived that long. There's a gap there. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In the strictest sense, the fact that WP has an article on Conservapedia is not a reason for it to have an article on RationalWiki. However, one might reasonably point out that there are NPOV issues with deleting only one of the two. The previous (2010) discussion linked to above provided several links to secondary sources regarding the Conservapedia/RW "wars" back in the day. I honestly don't see why this has been reopened. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - nominator withdrew (non-admin closure) St Anselm (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rabindra Jayanti[edit]

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

Completely unsourced abandoned article and no source to support notability. Qed237 (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – After reading the comments and seeing that reliable sources has been added to the article, I withdraw my nomination as it now seems to pass WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neither "unsourced" nor "abandoned" are reasons for deletion. It certainly looks like sources exist, and if the festival existed, it would surely be notable. St Anselm (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: WP:PROVEIT? Qed237 (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you say if the festival existed, you dont even know it exists. Qed237 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even do a search? History, Religion and Culture of India calls it "the most widely observed cultural festival in West Bengal". There are, in fact, hundreds of GBooks hits. It certainly seems like WP:BEFORE has not been followed here. St Anselm (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable festival in West Bengal and Bangladesh. Added a few references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unnecessary nomination as per the article's importance is concerned. — 14.96.155.218 (talk)
Keep Notable enough to have an article. 117.221.122.229 (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable cultural festival. The nominator is mad or what? 219.64.178.76 (talk)
Comment – The article creator SWASTIK 25 has been blocked as a sockmaster and has edited by proxy, so I would not be suprised if the IP's above belong to him as they have edited only this AfD or the same articles as SWASTIK 25. Qed237 (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As nominator, I have now seen sources been added and it looks notable, so it can be kept and my nomination is withdrawn. Qed237 (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It is clear that he is notable for the single Charlie Sheen event but there is no consensus on the lawsuit, which would make it two. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Chachoua[edit]

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

Non-notable quack, no sources outside of one incident (see WP:BLP1E). Guy (Help!) 10:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the one incident? The "cure" of a celebrity, or the "cure" of a small nation? --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Charlie Sheen thing, which is the only reason we have the article at all. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two incidents, including the Cedars Sinai lawsuit, which is not to say that I like the idea of giving prominence to a quack. 2601:401:500:99F4:61D4:1936:CFEE:B249 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: One event based on the limited coverage received because of Charlie Sheen. I propose the article redirect to Charlie Sheen with summary content merged into a section on his HIV. Otherwise, this quack is given undue prominence on WP. Delta13C (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree with JzG, the man's a quack. Wikipedia doesn't exist to endorse quakery, delete and salt it KoshVorlon 17:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC) :Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Would not redirect to Charlie Sheen, Sam Chachoua only has a single mention in the entire article. Aeonx (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's received a fair amount of media coverage, much of which is focused on him, and not Sheen. Being a quack doesn't mean you're non-notable, see Rhonda Byrne and Deepak Chopra -Quasipalm (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC) — Quasipalm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that there is no rule against including notable people just because they're quacks. And it seems pretty clear he's notable, given the hundreds of articles about him in Google News and his appearances on popular shows like Real Time and Dr. Oz. -Quasipalm (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charlie Sheen#Substance abuse, legal issues and health. Our opinion as to whether or not he's a "quack" is irrelevant. This person doesn't appear to be notable enough to have his own article, and any reliable coverage found looks to have been centered around one event, which is his interactions with actor Charlie Sheen. The best solution looks to be a redirect. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a perfect example of BLP1E. Max Semenik (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it might feel unbelievable, none of us KNOW that his work is at a quackery level. You assume it is. If there is evidence, that's a different story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wookienoize (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC) — Wookienoize (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Whether his work is quackery does not bear on the discussion concerning WP:BLP1E. He has received zero coverage in multiple independent sources that are separate from his run in with Charlie Sheen, except Quackwatch published something about his treatments some years ago. The numerous Google search results on Chachoua's name are narrowly a result of this one event with Sheen. Having said that, he is most certainly a quack-job. He has claimed to cure AIDS in the island nation of Comoros, which is not true. He claims to have been persecuted for his discoveries. He has not published any scientific papers detailing his claims. He charges a lot of money. These signs are all hallmarks of quackery. Delta13C (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per arguments of Oshwah above. Failing that, delete. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to be quite a few sources for the material in the page, independent from sheen. Arguably, his association with sheen is a minor part of his work. Why not redirect him to Cedars-Sinai for that matter? For the editorship to judge his quackness to the point of deleting him rather than providing the material and sources for the readership to decide for themselves is ultimate bias. He's got tens of thousands of news links via google, including last week's appearance on Bill Maher, which is going to get people looking for him; as it did me; and not finding any reference, caused me to write the quack up. Gzuckier (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is not being considered for deletion because he is a quack, rather he does not meet notability guidelines, per WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3/7 of the delete or redirect responses mention his quackitude as contributory. 30,000 google hits for sam chachoua MINUS sheen (including 3000 for sam chachoua quack MINUS sheen), suggesting that his notoriety is independent of sheen's. logic suggests sheen heard about the guy, after all. he shows up in like 100 google scholar hits including a couple of books. in any event, if not KEEP then delete, not redirect to sheen. Gzuckier (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly only on his way to meeting GNG because Charlie Sheen somehow discovered him and publicized his "treatments". He will most likely always be strongly affiliated with this run in with Sheen, so I think a redirect is fine, unless Sam Chachoua starts to get a lot more independent coverage for other things besides claiming to have injected Sheen's HIV positive blood into his own body. Delta13C (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be notable for more than one event. Good sourcing is available to establish this notability. I don't see a good argument for BLP1E being made, nor do I see a reason to muck up the Sheen article with details about this quack. Sperril (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep distastefully We don't need to like something for it to be notable. We don't have a BLP2E and I'd argue strongly against bringing in such a policy. Seems to be notable for at least two things. Keep. Now where's the Dettol for my eyes? --Dweller (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — it's getting bigger. It doesn't matter if he's a quack, plenty of other charlatans have articles. This is blurring into "I don't like it" land. 166.175.58.191 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The argument to support either delete or redirect has never been about allegations of being a "quack." The argument has always been about WP:BLP1E, as there is a gaping paucity of reliable sources prior to his run in with Charlie Sheen. Just because Sheen found this guy does not justify Chachoua's notability. Editors have used the word "quack" as shorthand within the confines of the discussion not argumentation for any outcome of the AfD. Delta13C (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

when has quack been shorthand for not notable? at risk of repeating myself, 3/7 of the delete or redirect responses mention his quackitude as contributory. 30,000 google hits for sam chachoua MINUS sheen (including 3000 for sam chachoua quack MINUS sheen), suggesting that his notoriety is independent of sheen's. logic suggests sheen heard about the guy, after all. he shows up in like 100 google scholar hits including a couple of books. Gzuckier (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Quack" has never been used as shorthand for "not notable." Being a quack does not preclude someone from being notable. I am under the impression that "quack" was being used as a descriptive shorthand that carries no weight either way about his notability. I get the impression that you are trying to distract from the substance of this AfD, which is about this quack's notability based on reliables sources beyond one event. Delta13C (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E for the Charlie Sheen incident. The Cedars-Sinai lawsuit does not appear to be notable, as there only seem to be primary sources for it. I also see nothing on Google Scholar that would make him notable; just some patent applications, lawsuits, and participation in a conspiracy theory magazine.  Adrian^[232] 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the Charlie Sheen stuff has brought him back into the limelight, he has a history that is documented in this article (e.g. the 1997 lawsuit). He's a quack, but I see no reason not to keep this article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure he passes WP:BLP without enough reliable sources? Delta13C (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable quack doctor. He has gotten a ton of media coverage following his appearances on Dr. Oz and Bill Maher. For the latter see, for example [16],[17]. There are also plenty of RS wherewith to thoroughly debunk his claims, so we can't cite BLPFRINGE as a deletion rationale. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLP1E. Delta13C (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable for two things: The Cedars Sinai lawsuit, and the bogus treatment of Charlie Sheen. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the Cedars Sinai case occurred before Google News started indexing in 2003, but it received media coverage at the time. See NBC. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, who else covered this lawsuit? Highbeam doesn't return any results. It seems to that the lawsuit is not quite enough to pass notability unless it was covered in multiple reliable sources that are intellectually independent from one another. If there are no reliable sources other than a YouTube video of NBC news, the event is not notable. When this is paired with the event of Charlie Sheen, well, that is a judgement call on the admin. Delta13C (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax, only keep argument is by a sockpuppet of the author. Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hunnish Language[edit]

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

The article is a POV fork (of Hunnic language) making nationalist claims on the basis of a patently non-reliable source. Delete, or redirect to Hunnic language. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article exists because you refuse to listen to any information I have found. I have also 3 sources, not one. This also is not nationalist, it is merely based on information I have found. If you say this is nationalist, then you could argue someone who says it's a Turkic language is nationalist as well. Why don't you read my sources instead of refusing to listen to my opinion. HorseSnack (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Hoax. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Hoax. Article creator has already created a few lame hoaxes like this, in an evident attempt to get an entry in WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. ‎NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax (but not necessarily by the author) or not notable by Wikipedia standards (or possibly both). I don't think there is nationalism involved, just making things up somewhere along the line. Possibly this is some sort of conlang thing, but it's not notable if it is. I'd like to see some more academic evidence than conversations on boards involving documents from a possible monastery (doubts are cast in sources) that are allegedly lost or now in the possession of rich Russians and Armenians who will not allow them to be published, or seemingly self-published screeds without apparent peer review. I'm open to being proved wrong. Peridon (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Hoax or Speedy A10 of Hunnic language. Bazj (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting article to read, and the sources look alright and I've even been trying to learn Hunnish. ÉnVagyokTojas (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)— ÉnVagyokTojas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to reviewing admins: ÉnVagyokTojas has been blocked as a sockpuppet of HorseSnack. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--Crovata (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Never usually close this early but as noted below there's articles on the BBC, NME, Clash and AllMusic so meets GNG (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apartment (London band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Been tagged as needing a reference since 2010. That is no reason to delete, but does show that it has had time for someone to clean it up, which is what I tried to do now. Unfortunately, I am unable to locate anything other than the BBC link in the external link section. It is a difficult name to search so I isolated the term with the names of the members and was still unable to come up with anything in-depth. There is also a redirect from an album that would need to be removed in the event consensus is delete. CNMall41 (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's the coverage you were looking for: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. --Michig (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources that have been found are good ones: the BBC, NME and Clash are enough to pass WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaMART[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

promotional article on dubiously notable online marketing firm, which includes among its promotion for its clients awarding them a non-notable award. "Some of the popular names that have been associated with this event are...." The refs, wherever published are either notices or PR. The previous afd was closed saying "promotion can be removed", but though I and Brianhe have tried, it keeps getting added; and if it were all removed, there would be nothing left. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as advert masquerading as an article. Most sources are press releases, so fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST – "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably notable, even with some links here and there, this can be deleted for now at best until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo junk failing WP:CORP. Interesting how three out of five named awardees of their IndiaMART Leaders of Tomorrow Award are familiar to me from the spam or COI noticeboards, or both: Flipkart (both); Cloudnine Hospitals (both); Zee Business (COIN). Of the remainder, one was PRODed by DGG and dePRODed by the SPA creator [23]. Without the dubious awards they give or receive, including the section just mentioned, the amazingly PROMO and WP:CRYSTAL section titled "Future Projections", the paragraph on their "brand ambassador" celebrity, and a cite for a subsidiary whose article was just deleted as non-notable [24], there would be ... let's see one whole citation concerning routine startup funding. Brianhe (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I am surprised to see Article for deletion at India's largest B2b online marketplace and world's second largest after Alibaba. (Review all new references added in the page) I can ignore the fact of 200 crore in annual revenue, but cannot ignore 20,000 crore of annual sales handled through its portal. Every newspaper and news channel in India covers India's largest online marketplace 3-4 times in a year. When I was looking for references, there were atleast 3,000 qualified references. (Google News) It is one of India's first and leading online portal. If the article is badly written, the focus must be on working rather than deleting without making a thorough research. It has completed several acquisitions and investments in several startups of India. If still you are not convinced, please delete Alibaba Group too after it, it's only 3-4 times bigger than Indiamart. Probably Microsoft can be considered for deletion after it, as it only sells computers and softwares which most of the people don't use or know about it(same is with Indiamart).Harshad.mehtashell (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)— Harshad.mehtashell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep IndiaMART is a 20 year old company, the largest B2B marketplace in India covered by reliable and notable publications like Business Line, The Indian Express, one of India's renowned newspapers, The Economic Times, among others. Rewrite in an appropriate language with only relevant information and references instead of deletion. Gayatri0704 (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)— Gayatri0704 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Definite Keep- The company has a wide coverage and is one of the Promising Internet Companies of India (as quoted in the different reliable sources). It has a wide media coverage and is one of the early birds in the Indian B2B marketplace. 1, 2, 3, 4. I don't entirely agree with the nomination, notability requires multiple sources, and this piece has multiple required sources in a greater depth. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When i look at the current version of the article, i find it a neat and clean article, satisfying all the Wiki norms and guidelines. The marketing fluff and the Future Projections section talked above are probably removed, and right now it appears as a perfect article with all necessary references from reliable sources, having international recognition and high Alexa ranking. I would recommend keeping the article. Vishal0soni (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability guidelines, article may have been improved as current version has lead section with similar type of information to that in the Apple Inc. article, and a history section which provides relevant information with references. It may still seem slightly promotional, because of the awards section (but they appear to be notable), and the events section, which is of unclear significance as one source there is a press release, "Emerging Business Forum", from http://corporate.indiamart.com/2011/11/09/indiamart-com-launches-emerging-business-forum-for-smes/), and the other is probably based on one, but that is not a reason for deletion. Peter James (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as for comparison with the apple article, see WP:EINSTEIN. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate new sources found sst✈^(conjugate) 08:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 08:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agreed with User:Northamerica1000, anyone who resides in India knows what Indiamart is. Only reason it was marked for deletion as it wasn't referenced properly earlier, the last AFD was also keep and this also will be a keep. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close and Keep, with the current clean up by Peter James, page is a keep for me. Ireneshih (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied as WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CJNI-DT[edit]

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

No such station exists or has been announced to go on the air. Clearly unsourced and was made up by the original poster. Creativity-II (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious fake; Halifax already has a Channel 3 and a Channel 5, and even in the digital age with virtual channeling, a Channel 4 in the same market would never be approved because it would be a cacophony of interference, along with CJCB-TV (the Channel 4 in Sydney) not being happy about having their channel number stolen. Nate • (chatter) 08:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the others above. Besides being unsourced, I can't find anything online that actually shows the station even exists. Cmr08 (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a WP:HOAX, for all the reasons specified above. (I was also going to raise the fact that Halifax's CJNI-FM makes it impossible for a television station in the same market to be CJNI-DT unless it's owned by Rogers Communications, but the creator was clever enough to toss a reference to "Citytv Maritimes" into his edit summary even though he failed to claim ownership by Rogers or affiliation with Citytv in the article body. But Citytv definitely does not have an affiliate in Halifax — and if they wanted to add one now, they'd buy out CTV Two Atlantic rather than launching a new station anyway.) The creator also has a history of filling Wikipedia articles about Canadian television with a lot of unsourced and badly written content that has to be reverted for one reason or another, usually total nonsense. Consider this speedied. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Triveni veena[edit]

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

I can't find web sources for this product that are not somehow affiliated with the inventor. If offline sources exist, they should have been cited; for now, this doesn't seem to meet WP:NPRODUCT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beniwal[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this is notable, nor find a suitable redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some custom Google Books source searches, and some sources from those searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Beniwal" clan
"Beniwal" jat
"Beniwal" gotra

References

Irrigation and Agricultural Development in Asia. p. 320.
The Modern Review. p. 197.
Lectures on Rajput history and culture. p. 91.
Gender, Identity and Violence: Female Deselection in India. p. pt-298-299.
Peasant-base of Indian democracy. p. 96.
History of the Jats. p. 73. Quote: "Bangamer is mentioned only in the Mahabharat, Beniwal Beniwal are found in large numbers in the desert regions." (snippet view)
Gazetteer of Rural Delhi. p. 39.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some odd wiki — as one of the first Google search results — where they are defined in more detail. They are classified as a branch of "Chauhan" which has a slightly larger article on Wikipedia but which has no mention of any branches. If you look on that site how many branches Chauhan has and how detailed every one of those sub-branch pages are, you'll end up even more confused. Since it's a country of a billion people I could see a branch of a branch being notable, but I think some research by someone not me is needed here... Clearly the Wikipedia article in its current state is poor, however. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, draft & userfy and restart later if needed as although the current article could be imaginably acceptable, it's not currently the best. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion are persuasive. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Majerus-Collins[edit]

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

Simply does not pass notability standards. Created by single-purpose user. Xin Deui (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionably meets the notability standards. Covered by numerous major international news outlets, founded a significant international nonprofit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.181.153.118 (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC) — 134.181.153.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would have to disagree with you. He was covered by a limited amount of new publications and nowhere near the amount needed to be notable for Wikipedia. In no capacity nor any measure, did the subject create a "significant international nonprofit" -far from it. Please visit WP:NOTE, and explore the requirements and explanations of the concept of notability on Wikipedia. If you find someone who actually fits these criteria, please feel free to experiment in your WP:SANDBOX, and always feel free to reach out to editors for any help! Thank you. Xin Deui (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. At best this is a case of BLP1E. Person is simply not notable; the event wasn't that noteworthy. Xin Deui, please notify the article creator. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not conceivably pass any notability requirements BMK (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original author did a terrible job of demonstrating the extensive sources that cover Majerus-Collins. Here are just a sample:

Included above are some of the most influential news outlets in the world. Unquestionably, Majerus-Collins' actions in December 2015, as well as his role in creating Youth Journalism International, a significant global nonprofit, show that he is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newenglandwarrior (talk • contribs) 22:46, 7 February 2016‎ (UTC) — Newenglandwarrior (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Newenglandwarrior, first of all, please sign your comments by typing four waves (they will be displayed to the right of the save page template) after concluding your comment. All of the links you've provided showcase that Sheldon Adelson is notable, not the subject. As it currently stands, the subject is no where near notable enough to be featured on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xin Deui (talk • contribs) 23:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Steve Majerus-Collins' notability is confined to coverage within one single event. WP:NRV states that "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest" (emphasis mine). Furthermore, WP:NOTWHOSWHO states that "even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." (emphasis mine). Steve Majerus-Collins might be suitable for an honorable mention in an article on Sheldon Adelson, but his coverage is so minimal and confined that, according to Wikipedia standards, an article on this individual is in no way warranted. Rmckenney (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Color in Music Technology[edit]

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

Appears to be a list of non-notable people fitting a narrow category; if any of these individuals are notable, they're presumably identified on their own articles with appropriate categories. only (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete arbitrary list. No evidence of coverage of the subject "women of color in music technology". - üser:Altenmann >t 05:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. One is further puzzled by the unsourced claim that all are transgender. Apparently the list was originally copied from List of female electronic musicians, then pared down to its present form. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B522:57FE:97E5:AE4 (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unneeded list of largely non-notable entries. For the record, @2601:188:0:ABE6:B522:57FE:97E5:AE4:, the list does not claim that the women are all transgender. It specifically identifies them as "cis and trans women". (For those who don't know, cis refers to people whose gender identity matches their genetic gender, as opposed to trans people whose gender identity is not in sync with their genetic gender.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. This is clearly a case for speedy deletion under CSD G11 as pure spam. I have tagged it for speedy deletion. This AfD should not have been opened for such an obvious speedy deletion candidate. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow season 4 episode 12[edit]

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

Does not belong in Wikipedia. PigeonOfTheNight (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded. a CLoG? | unCLoG 04:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Spam galore, it goes without saying. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed. This AfD is out of process. If the RM at Anthony Johnson (Fighter) is closed in favour of a move, the redirect will be deleted by an admin. In the meantime, the claim that "consensus has been reached on the talkpage for the move" is premature. Number 5 7 08:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Johnson (fighter)[edit]

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

To make room to for Anthony Johnson (Fighter) to be moved to this page because a consensus has been reached on the talkpage for the move Rockchalk717 03:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus for deletion following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Macca[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local radio personality cum drag queen, not supported by adequate reliable sourcing. Almost all of the referencing here is to primary sources like her own website, the website of the radio station she's a personality on, YouTube videos, press releases on the websites of local politicians and the iTunes sales page of a song — and while there is a bit of purely localized media coverage sprinkled in, there's not enough of it to give her a WP:GNG pass. None of this is enough to support or justify permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia — while it's not impossible for topics of purely local interest to get into Wikipedia, the sourcing has to be a lot better than this to get them in the door. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete a freally weird article. No independent notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC at this time. This source provides significant coverage, but others found only provide passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I refactored the references. But she is local and not particularly noteworthy even at that level. Doesn't cross the threshold of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. That she interviewed some notable persons doesn't make her notable. Not inherited or imputed. I have found a few YouTube videos, and some facebook stuff, but it is very limited. WP:Too soon. Suggest that this be userfied to the article creator. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local radio personality with inadequate sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest West Basden[edit]

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

Why are we honoring this murderer with a Wikipedia article? I can't see any evidence of any special circumstances or long-lasting repercussions of this conviction and execution. Though I'm sure the murder would have got some news coverage somewhere at the time, it's a WP:ONEEVENT situation. An entry on List of people executed in North Carolina should be quite adequate. Sionk (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, having a Wikipedia article has nothing to do with "honoring" the topic: notability is not a question of whether anybody approves or disapproves of the reasons why a person might be notable. Bad people get into Wikipedia if the reliable source coverage is there to support an article, and good people don't get into Wikipedia if the reliable source coverage isn't there. That said, what I'm not seeing in this instance is a strong level of media coverage — it seems to be based entirely on primary sources published by the state's own criminal justice division. To be fair, the article was created in 2003, at a time when he was relatively current news for some people — but I'm not seeing a compelling reason why 13 years later there would still be enough sustained interest in this case to justify keeping an article that's sourced this badly. Redirect to List of people executed in North Carolina, per nom, unless somebody can actually retrieve much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of the argument is whether this is more than a WP:ONEEVENT situation, regardless of whether there was media coverage or whether the subject is 'good' or 'bad'. I should have specified WP:CRIME, which covers perpetrators and victimes of crime. Most murders will get media coverage, but we wouldn't want Wikipedia articles about every murder. Sionk (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neither his crime nor he himself appear to support notability. The murder itself could probably support an article, if somebody wanted to write one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of lasting notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Mars Rover Team[edit]

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

No independent references to be found that are anything more than a mere mention of the team. No apparent wins in any competition. | Uncle Milty | talk | 13:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of any notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any significant coverage by independent secondary sources. Astro4686 (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Evans (poker player)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Let's try to get at least one lvote on this second attempt. Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or come even remotely close to the poker player notability guidelines. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant results GPI Ranking is 24,898th ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk

delete no evidence of significant coverage. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they pass notability criteria as per WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A lot of work seems to have gone into this list, but this appears to be trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's been nominated before (and I lvoted too). The references have not improved in the least. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All sports statistics is trivia to me, so I don't know what rule is broken here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTPEOPLE, with thanks to the editors who addressed concerns of the last AFD even though it resulted in a keep itself. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a subject of legitimate interest. bd2412 T 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Windsong (Rachel Faro album)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, fails WP:NSONG. JMHamo (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I would have speedied it Gbawden (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC and searches don't show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Unless the article has no salvageable content, content problems are not a reason for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian wine[edit]

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

POINTY POV, this is part of a slew of articles created by an editor who seems to have a serious beef with Israel so much so that his main goal is to use Wikipedia to delegitimize Israel at every opportunity. He takes a few sources, strings them together and tries to make an article out out something not notable at all. This article is a POV fork of Israeli wine and it expands on it solely as a fork to bash Israel. No other country has such an article on the history of wine. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Zero^talk 02:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israeli wine. Potentially merge some of the content.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there User:Zigzig20s - please take your head out of your rear. Palestine and Israel are separate countries. AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Who said anything about delegitimizing Israel? Obscene remarks. You want to deny the existence of the West Bank? Or do you want to deny that the lands consisting modern day Israel were most recently called Palestine? Makeandtoss (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the West Bank. Look at Chesdovi's contributions. He has an extreme POV and COI and he should not be editing articles about Israel. Half of this article could be about Israeli wine, yet it's in this subject, merely because he does want to deligitimize Israel because he is part of a group of Jews who does deligitimize Israel. So yes, it is obscene and I hope you would agree with me that someone who shares that opinion shouldn't be editing articles about the region. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory and unhelpful discussion

Lol, let me guess. You call these group of people self-hating Jews? --Makeandtoss (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would you call Jews who march with Holocaust deniers and the destruction of Israel? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Jews"? And what do you call Jews who deny the Genocide in the Holy Land and who cosy up to the proponents of secular Zionism whose aim is the destruction of Judaism? Self-hating Jews? Chesdovi (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article content ends before the state of Israel was created, so the claim that this is a fork of Israeli wine is ridiculous. Besides that, a AfD nomination consisting almost entirely of an attack on the motives of another editor should lead to a speedy close if not sanctions. Zero^talk 02:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

take a look at his other articles he created. It's hard to AGF. This has nothing to do with the IP conflict but an internal Jewish debate and he is taking an extreme minority fringe opinion. Sure, this article has some history to it. But an Israeli Wine article is the place for a section on Israeli wine. This article only serves one purpose. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the way you are carrying on. Read WP:NPA. Actually your overall assessment of Chesdovi is completely wrong and you should stop shooting insults at people you don't understand. Since when is wine produced before Israel existed "Israeli wine" anyway? It doesn't make sense. Zero^talk 02:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zero that a redirect to Israeli wines is out of the question. But I also agree with Sir Joseph that this editor has a severe case of POV, and has been promoting the term "Palestinian" completely out of context in many articles over the years. This is just the most recent, and most ludicrous of them. Debresser (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and better coordinate with Israeli wine. This article appropriately covers the period before 1948, when the area that is now Israel and Palestine was nearly universally referred to in English as Palestine. It should be expanded to cover viticulture in the West Bank and Gaza, if there is any. What is inappropriate is for Israeli wine to pretend there was such a thing as Israeli wine during biblical times or at any other time before 1948.
Regardless of my suspicions about Chesdovi's motivation in creating this article, I respectfully disagree with the nom that it's a POV fork, There's virtually no overlap between the two articles except, as I noted, what I think is inappropriate overreach in the article about Israeli wine. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep looks a legitimate article to me. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is another point in case of User:Chesdovi's long history of cherrypicking sources and individual statements from those sources to put together an article that looks well-sourced, while in reality it is his synthesis which builds the article about what is in reality non-subject. It is awful that someone should good good academic sources to make a political statement based on a choice of words as opposed to the intention of those sources. At least we shouldn't lend a hand to those efforts. Come on guys, Palestinian wine?! Debresser (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on yourself! I have tons of articles and books on my computer that mention wine making in "Palestine" without even needing to go to the web. And charges of cherry-picking mean nothing without examples. It seems you are also more concerned with the author than the content. Zero^talk 09:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAN ALERT: [25]. Chesdovi (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. All citations are sourced to "Palestinian wine".

Palestinian rabbis produced Palestine wine

For kiddush each week, recalling God's eternal sign

In Jerusalem and Safed they imbibed their brew

Their unique concoction was envied by every Jew

Centuries before Israel appeared on the map

Palestinian wine was available on tap

Pressed from grapes grown in the holy earth

It filled Palestinian Jews with abundant mirth

They sent it across the globe, far and wide

Soaring demand invigorated them with pride

Now the Zionists claim to have supplanted Palestine's vine

But we will always remember fondly our Palestinian wine

L'Chaim! Chesdovi (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chesdovi: See here. Zero^talk 01:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

commenting considering that the article is mostly about kosher wine since Palestinians don't drink wine, you can certainly see why the article had a pov, why not call it history of kosher wine, or something similar?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no. [26], [27] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinians can drink as much wine as they like. Muslims are. Some anyway. There is debate that wine is just fine. Some Orthodox Christians of Palestine have started a winery as is linked above. They also have a Brewery there that is ties to the same owners as I understand.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination seems pointy. As for "No other country has such an article", Category:Wine by country might be worth a look pablo 15:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean, wine by country, I meant on the history of the wine by country. The whole article is just a way for the author to avoid saying Israel is a country. Would you not say this should belong in History of Kosher wine or History of Israeli wine or something similar? Does any other country have such a convoluted and expanded history section? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Wine in the Middle East, which desperately needs referencing like this, and merge applicable sections about Israeli wine in particular to Israeli wine. The latter article could be renamed Wine in Israel to encompass the historical connotations of the wine produced here, besides its modern-day "boutique wine" image. Otherwise, Palestinian wine seems like a fork of the latter two articles. I agree with Sir Joseph that this article is a way of avoiding any reference to "Israel". Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ...And how many times is "Palestine" referenced in Israeli wine? None! Should we AFD Israeli wine since it is a way to "avoid saying [Palestine was] a country"? Just take a look at this line from that article: "In Roman times, wine from Israel was exported to Rome with the most sought after wines being vintage, dated with the name of the winemaker inscribed on the amphora." But there was no "Israel" in Roman times, only Judea or Palestine! The hypocrisy here has a debilitating stench. Chesdovi (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because it's an article about Israeli Wine. Are you purposely being daft? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - By all means, have your article on wine made in Israel. But why deny a page about wine made in Palestine? There was no State of Israel in the year 50 CE. And last time I checked, we don't tolerate place name anachronisms within articles which are intended to subvert the truth and crush cultural identities on Wikipedia. Chesdovi (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could go for this, I think some of the sources are valid and while the intent is of course to avoid using the Zionist Entity's name, if we take the sources and redirect to Wine in the Middle East we can expand that article to a nice decent article. A good chunk of this article is about the ME anyway, not the Zionist Entity anyway. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory AGF failure
Yes, go on, anything to remove Palestine from your Zionist-centric map. Chesdovi (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect and merge This content and its references should not be lost. I don't want (and don't think there is any good reason) for this to become involved in the politics between Israel and Palestine. We should bridge that gap. However, We should relish and promote the distinctions and not bury or homogenize distinct viticultural districts, histories and heritages. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added a modern industry section. Now I fail to see any reason on why the article should be removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification will need to be added to the lead vis-à-vis Israeli wine and Palestinian wine post 1948. Chesdovi (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you added one tiny section to a huge article about historical stuff, would you support Yoninah's suggestion above? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tiny section can be expanded. All countries have similar articles, Palestine should be no exception. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. You tell them. Chesdovi (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect, merge, and rename I notice that the history section of the Israeli wine contains the the history of the wine before an Israel existed. It would seem more appropriate to put it on a Palestinian history page or to combine both listings and rename them accordingly.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. If we try to combine these into a history of Palestinian and Israeli wine as one article, the partisans on both sides of this neverending civil war will go nuts (not grapes). -- Kendrick7^talk 05:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lol, and if we don't the partisans of both sides will still go nuts.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice above a suggestion to Redirect and merge to Wine in the Middle East. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And do you similarly advocate redirecting and merging Israeli wine to Wine in the Middle East? And if not, why not? Chesdovi (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Anytime. Though I'm not sure if you also want to merge Egyptian wine and Jordanian wine too. Chesdovi (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, so now we are going to merge all Middle East wines to appease partisans. I see no point in taking any action to appease any partisan of either side because nothing is going to appease either side. By the way, seriously you found Taybeh winery for Palestinian wine but not Cremisian Winery? I didn't explain the keep vote but seems like everyone else has done so well in that.There's enough justification to keep.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a reasonable article; the region of Palestine has existed for over a thousand years, and, like many regions of the world has been noted for their wine over the ages. Is there any logic to derail this reality other than contemporary politics, or that the OP simply holds the original author of the article in low esteem? I've seen WP:IDONTLIKEIT a lot on AfD; but I've never seen I don't like that editor used as a valid excuse to delete their work. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Kendrick7. This article is well sourced and the topic is relevant. No argument is provided by the editors supporting the deletion. It seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue. The merging is not a right argument either. Palestinian wines are not Israeli wines and Israel is not Palestine. Why not merging Spanish, French and Italian wines in European wine ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate topic. Let's not make Israel/Palestine topics on Wikipedia more loaded than they already are. gidonb (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Cannot believe the comments made be the nom suggesting having a page about Palestinian wine is "de-legitimising" Israel. User:Sir Joseph - you are de-legitimising Palestine and the Palestinian people yourself with this shameful, WP:POINTy and WP:IDONTLIKEIT nom. Palestine exists. It IS NOT part of Israel. Palestine is recognised by 70.5% of all UN members including major world and regional powers such as Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa and China. A number of European countries, such as Malta, Serbia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Iceland and Sweden. The nom is saying "I don't like the editor - let's delete". This is one of the most procedurally flawed and despicable nominations I have ever seen. It is shameful. I believe this nom meets the criteria for a speedy keep set out at WP:SKCRIT "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion as an outcome of the discussion. For example:

a) obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured articles or April Fools jokes)

b) nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption, e.g. when a contestant in an edit war nominates an opponent's userpage solely for harassment" AusLondonder (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:AusLondonder, there is no such thing as the "Palestinian people" in a historical context. This article is about the history of wine in a region which the foreign powers labeled "Palestine" after the ancient Philistines, and which in fact is the Land of Israel. Did you read the article? Yoninah (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondoner missed the point, but I'm not sure if that is worse than getting the point and still voting against an article topic that is so obviously legitimate. Zero^talk 00:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote against it, I suggested merging it with Wine in the Middle East. Obviously it's a legitimate topic. Yoninah (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you propose merging Israeli wine into Wine in the Middle East too? If not, you should explain the inconsistency. Zero^talk 12:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, there is also no such thing as the "Israeli people" in a historical context either. Nor the "Italian people" before the mid-19th century. The list is endless. What "Palestinian" means in this context is "from Palestine." It is distinct from the concept of a Palestinian nation. Chesdovi (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In this document you can find proof that the Jewish wine growers of late Ottoman Palestine called it Palestinian wine in English, German, French and Yiddish. Search of the Palestine Post proves that the same is true in English during the British Mandate. Zero^talk 08:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

, but that doesn't mean they called it that during the Roman and Greek period? Certainly you can see how this article might be better suited merged, if you don't want it deleted. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason to not call the historic region by the name used by the overwhelming majority of high quality English sources. It's as simple as that. If you have an actual argument for deletion or merging, it's high time that you tell us what it is. Zero^talk 08:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Possibly rename. The article itself is okay but like most new articles is in need of a bit of work. Chesdovi however is quite clearly a bad faith editor who has obviously created this article in order to "stick it" to the "Zionists", whom he opposes ideologically, and rather uncivilly. (I have collapsed his and others' less helpful contributions to this AfD.) Suspicions of a potential POV fork are not totally without merit, and the locus of the article needs to be sorted pronto, as it was probably intended to create an opening to extend its content into the modern State of Palestine, and advance the idea that it is in fact this state that is the true "legitimate" successor to the Mandate and the historical region. User Makeandtoss has already begun editing to that end. I'm of the view that this article should stop dead at 1948 and continue on in the child articles Israeli wine and a possible Wine in the State of Palestine article. This article should perhaps be renamed something suitable to avoid confusion; I honestly suspect fostering such confusion was in fact a partial motivation of the article creator. Blurring the clear lines between the historical Palestine and the decidedly modern State of Palestine is a key tactic of anti-Zionist and Palestinian nationalist editors on Wikipedia. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could merge, redirect or rename, if you take a look at those not in favor of keeping, there is a consensus to take some of the content, salvage and merge either into Wine in the Middle East or something along those lines, but as it stands now, the article is most certainly POV and should not stand. Based on your comments, I would ask you to change your keep to a merge, redirect or rename. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could probably simply subtitle the older stuff Wine in historic Palestine. Subtitle the modern section accordingly.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[28]. Chesdovi (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tragedy of the anticommons or Tragedy of the commons, whichever is more appropriate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy of the commons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There's only one source in the article which actually uses the phrase "comedy of the commons" and even that does it in a way that just plays off the much more famous Tragedy of the commons. Looking around there's some other sources which use the term but they do so inconsistently with no set meaning. This isn't surprising given that the concept "tragedy of the commons" exists - sooner or later someone will think themselves clever and use "comedy" to title something or other. This does not make this a well defined or notable encyclopedia article subject. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

delete; nonnotabe term and incomprehensible article. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge - covers similar ideas to tragedy of the anticommons. The articles should be merged into one article called 'Criticism of tragedy of the commons'.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my 'vote' from 'merge' to 'Keep/merge', the term seems notable - but I'm neutral on whether it needs its own article. It certainly should have a mention on the Tragedy of the commons page. As for the general concept it is better as part of Common good or Common good (economics), although, neither of those articles are great at the moment.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the Rose article and use of the concept in either of these articles is fine - but it's really just a minor part of the bigger topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not enough to stand alone, but a useful complement to Tragedy of the commons. Merge into the latter article. (Carol M. Rose is a leading property theorist...) DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this seems to be a bad faith attempt by the Volunteer Marek to delete the article, and all material about it, as well as all similar articles that don't agree with his only favourite outcome 'tragedy of the commons'. In broad terms there's four possible outcomes: in any particular market place, it can be a commons (commonly held with no effective ownership), anticommons (private only, monopolistic ownership), and it can be reaching its potential or not reaching its full potential. The tragedy of the commons is only one possible outcome, there's three others, and the research shows that they all happen in the real world.GliderMaven (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The four outcomes you outline are not mutually exclusive, many countries have laws for private and common/public ownership with positive and negative outcomes resulting simultaneously. An article (or sections on Tragedy of the commons) about the positive aspects of commons and negative aspects of anticommons would be useful. However, the phrase 'tragedy of the commons' has a long history, and therefore many sources. The phrase 'comedy of the commons' is less well known and used. It would be useful if you could provide references for the research you mentioned.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the whole thing is his own personal original research and he has refused to provide any sources to back any of it up, saying that it's just "summarizing" or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And GliderMaven, I would really appreciate it if you refrained from now on from telling me what my "only favorite outcome" is as you have no way of knowing that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually quite a lot of good quality sources I've found on this topic, I've added a few already, and somebody even won a Nobel prize by essentially finding Comedies and analysing what made them work. Villages in the Swiss alps have had literal grazing commons working extremely well for them for about 500 years; and Wikipedia itself can be considered a comedy also; I noticed that Wikipedia itself had been specifically and systematically removed by the nominator while removing material.GliderMaven (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about Elinor Ostrom. She did not use the term "comedy of the commons" except perhaps when she cited Rose's article, which is still the only source for the term.

Please keep in mind that the article on Comedy of the commons is NOT suppose to be a WP:POVFORK or WP:COATRACK for "tragedy of the commons". Both Rose and Ostrom can be used in other articles. This article is just original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason I'm removing your "examples" is because they're your own original research. Look, this isn't about whether one believes in the tragedy of the commons or not, as you seem to think it is. It's simply about whether this article and this term are notable. And the answer to that is no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this is the only reasonable thing to do with material which passes NNC but fails SIGCOV, especially if there's an obvious article to merge it into. De Guerre (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect you say that it fails SIGCOV, but Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel prize on this exact topic, so I don't understand how it can fail it. There's also wrote a book on it, and other people have chapters in books, and there's over a thousand RS papers on it, and plenty of online commentators have written extensively about various online commons. I mean don't forget, this is only stub quality right now.GliderMaven (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, as much as you try to repeatedly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, Elinor Ostrom did NOT... NOT NOT NOT NOT ... win a Noble prize "on this exact topic". That is total nonsense. The supposed topic of this article is not notable enough for anyone to have won a Noble prize "on it". She won the Noble prize "for her analysis of economic governance". Here is the Noble prize page for her: [29]. Please show me where it says anything about some "comedy of the commons". Please stop misrepresenting this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom (I think I'm suppose to !vote too). Merging some of the material to tragedy of the anticommons makes sense as well, in particular the Rose article (which is the only reliable relevant source in this article).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (note that GliderMaven has tried to strike out or remove my !vote from this discussion)Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The topic has notability as Rose's paper is extensively cited. The fundamental topics here are on pages like common good (economics) or commons. Highlighting the positive or negative aspects of these is not neutral and so the tragedy/comedy should be brought together to provide balance. Andrew D. (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the first sensible comment I've read in this car-crash discussion. Clearly someone coined the phrase "Comedy of the Commons", which is referred to by many and is therefore notable, and clearly this is part of a bigger discussion about the common good. JMWt (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the disagreement seems to arise from whether the article should be about a specific academic term 'Comedy of the commons', or whether it should be about the wider general concept that 'comedy of the commons' refers too - as discussion on the 'Rename' section on the talk page.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an essay, almost entirely OR that refers to various authors and articles, but the article text is not verified by the references. Any well-cited and noteworthy criticism of the Tragedy of the Commons can be used in that article. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Comment I encourage !voters to check any and all the edits in the article made by Volunteer Marek; he is removing material that even has whole chapters on the comedy of the commons and claiming that it never mentions it and is off topic. This is terribly bad form in my opinion; he's also removing material on 'triumph of the commons' on the grounds that it isnt' the same term; but the principle is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and articles are not on terms, they are on topics, in this case, successful commons.GliderMaven (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to provide a link to the Rifkin book. Now that I went and searched it out myself it does appear that he uses the term, again, when quoting Rose. So what you have ONE source where the term first appeared and then another source which mentions the original source. There is still no indication for a widespread use of the term.

And I have no idea why you think that WP:NAD gives you a free pass to conduct your own original research and equivocate between different terms when you have trouble finding sources. "Triumph of the commons" is not "comedy of the commons", not without a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment2 there was a previous AFD in 2006 on this topic; but a Nobel prize was awarded in 2009 on it.GliderMaven (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment3 the nom is admitting above to deleting references and material without checking them, he has been doing this systematically.GliderMaven (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a discussion regarding the name of the article here Talk:Comedy_of_the_commons#Rename_to_Criticism_of_the_tragedy_of_the_commons_or_something_else Jonpatterns (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to GliderMaven There was no "Nobel prize" awarded for work on "Comedy of the Commons". That's just ridiculous. There was a prize awarded for work on the freakin' Tragedy of the commons.

And GliderMaven, seriously, stop it with the personal attacks. You failed to provide a link to a source making it unverifiable. And even when I found the source myself all it did was just quote the previous source. Please stop misrepresenting things. I'm starting to loose my patience with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment4: Scholar alone has 1120 hits on 'comedy of the commons' and they seem to be broadly on-topic. I've found quite a few books on this as well in google and elsewhere, and I've only put a very few into the article so far. The nom has repeatedly claiming that it's all 'OR'; but absolutely there's no evidence of that I can find anywhere, that claim, along with deleting references and material out of hand.GliderMaven (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are either instances where Rose's paper was cited, or they are unrelated usages of the term.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OR was your little table which was unsourced (which is no longer, correctly, in the article) and your made up "examples" of "comedy of the commons" which were unsourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to admit to being a bit confused about the above. Surely academic sources always reference previous uses of a term, so there are no "unrelated" uses. That's the nature of academic work. Many of the papers actually appear to be attempting to highlight and distinguish the term from the "tragedy of the commons" - which appears to me to be evidence that the term is legitimate. These are not just repeating the title of the Rose paper, they're actually referring to the idea. JMWt (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, what it means is that more than one person has had the idea to riff off "tragedy of the commons" by being clever and talking about a "comedy of the commons", because, you know, that's like ironic since comedy and tragedy are opposites. But not all of these persons are talking about the same thing. That's some of the sources, the rest are about or cite Rose. What this really does show is that the "comedy of the commons" idea, to the extent there is some substance to it, is just an elaboration on the general idea of the tragedy of the commons or a criticism of it, which is where any of useful info here belongs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not at all what it's about. It's about the branch of economics that Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel prize investigating.GliderMaven (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. You really have no idea of what you're talking about. Elinor Ostrom won the Noble prize "for her analysis of economic governance". Not some "comedy of the commons". More specifically she won (in part, she's had a lot of contributions) for studying how societies solve the problem of managing common resources without central government intervention. If someone can't tell the difference between what Ostrom actually did and what this "comedy of the commons" is (or you think it is) then their !vote here should probably be discounted. Heavily.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I can state that you are incorrect, that's what her research was about, and I am incredibly unimpressed that you deleted this from the article lead, in the middle of an AFD like that, and reading the references, and really even reading her bio will show that.GliderMaven (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a source that says that Elinor won the Noble prize for "comedy of the commons". You basically can't because such a source doesn't exist because you just made that shit up. Here is her bio [30]. Where? Where is this "comedy of the commons" in this bio? Not in there. You made that up too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her bio says she: 'After fifteen years of extensive research on police industry structure and performance, I returned to studying the commons, but this time with the recognition of what I was studying. The National Research Council created a special committee in the mid-1980s to review the empirical research written about common-pool resources.' It doesn't say anywhere she ever worked on tragedy of the commons; but other references do say she worked mainly on the comedy/commons in general. According to you, she only worked on tragedy of the commons. Sorry, no. I specifically gave you a reference saying she worked on the comedies; I have never seen a single reference saying she only worked on the tragedy, which is what you are claiming. Put up or shut up.GliderMaven (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to provide a single reference which says she worked on the "comedy of the commons". You just keep asserting that without any backing.

As to her working on "Tragedy" of the commons she references it here, here is a secondary source, here is another, here is she herself talking about it, here is another secondary source, here she is talking about Tragedy again, here is another secondary source about Ostrom's work on the tragedy of the commons and here... well, I'm bored now. If you think that "there's no sources" that she worked on the tragedy of the commons then that simply means you're not familiar with the topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You both need to step away from this kind of behaviour, it isn't helping. Clearly Ostrom didn't work on the "Comedy of the Commons" because the term was only coined later. But clearly the term reflected some of the ideas Ostrom had developed in her Nobel Prize winning work around the commons (her work was clearly much wider than just about the Tragedy). Now instead of fighting over edits and reverting, how about being constructive? JMWt (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term was actually coined in 1986, and she wrote her book in 1990, but otherwise that's correct; and Volunteer Marek is trying to merge everything into Tragedy of the Commons. I can only presume Marek's an extreme libertarian or something and doesn't believe in the idea of stable commons and is trying to get the article deleted. GliderMaven (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the misunderstanding is to do with whether the article is (or should be) about the concept 'comedy of the commons' AKA positive results from common ownership, or just about the specific phrase phrase Comedy of the Commons and nothing more. Also see, Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia - some editors are prefer 'selective coverage', while other are happy for 'broad retention'. Also see Wikipedia:Notability, which may help in deciding whether or not a topic should or should not have an article.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GliderMaven, you know what they say about making assumptions. You have no idea of what my beliefs are so I'd appreciate it - and I believe I've already asked you once - if you kept your sophomoric opinions about what I supposedly believe to yourself.

Jonpatterns - the WP:Notability guideline is the crux of the issue here. By itself, the phrase or the concept "Comedy of the commons" is not notable. There's nothing in this article that couldn't be accommodated with a couple sentences in the article on the Tragedy of the Commons or the Criticisms of article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really, so why did somebody get a Nobel prize on this if it's not notable???? She didn't get it for Tragedy of the Commons, and the Rifkin source specifically links her and the Comedy of the Commons.

The article is NOT simply about any phrase at all, it's a general article about stable commons. Just because you keep saying that is about that phrase, doesn't make it any way true. Please stop misrepresenting the sources, the facts, the article, and please stop pushing your political views on Wikipedia.GliderMaven (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freakin' a. How many times does this have to be repeated and explained? She didn't get the Nobel prize for "comedy of the commons". That's stupid because it's not a widely used concept. She got the Nobel prize, as I've mentioned and backed up with sources half a dozen times by now, for studying how societies successfully manage the commons - i.e. how they *resolve* the tragedy of the commons. I gave you half a dozen sources which say exactly that and further sources are trivial to find. There is no further point in this discussion because you're hell bent on being obstinate and NOTLISTENING.

And also one more time. You don't know what my "political views" are, so please kindly screw off.

(and here's a piece of life advice - don't make ad hoc assumptions about other people's beliefs either in real life or online because you end up looking like an ass yourself. This is in response to you restoring your obnoxious personal attack after it's been removed [31]).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GliderMaven: It has not been decided that the entry should be ... a general article about stable commons. '. Also, it is best to Wikipedia:Assume good faith rather than suggest other editors have political motivations.

I've started a WP:RfC (on article's talk page) to decide exactly what the article should be about, a phrase or a concept.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that discussion will take a while to run, but for the purposes of this discussion the relevant policy is that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide", so I'm stating that it is and should be on the topic of stable commons, and not on a phrase.GliderMaven (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstand what "not a dictionary" means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ ILJANO[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO JMHamo (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable DJ - Fails MUSICBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSBIO and there is essentially no coverage that would pass WP:GNG. /wiae /tlk 22:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as also hinting as G11 speedy, no signs of a currently better article. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camerina Arvizu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable actress JMHamo (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she had one role that might pass for the standards of things someone needs two such roles to be notable, but even that role it is hard to tell if it is up to par. Clearly she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR with only one film credit to her name, and there is no coverage from reliable sources that would meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. /wiae /tlk 22:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12 Finger Dan[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom says it all Dschslava (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSBIO as mentioned, and there is a lack of reliable sources offering significant coverage. My search revealed only some primary-source interviews, but that doesn't help with notability. /wiae /tlk 22:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, and searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Rain[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content. With references like analcuties.com, this is unusually bad, even given the average low quality of porn sourcing. PROD removed without explanation or nontrivial article improvement by article creator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about if articles are deleted, despite the fact that there are many nominations, especially in important categories. What is the policy on that? There are some actresses like Aria Giovanni and Natalia Starr who have much fewer nominations but have acceptable guidelines for a Wikipedia article. Can there be clarity on the subject?Also the analcuties.com reference was only to source one of the people she had previously worked with who also has a Wikipedia page. Please suggest a better source instead that I can use as I am a new editor. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete nn. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep She is an up and coming performer. She's been nominated at age 19, awards will be forthcoming. Besides, awards alone don't make someone notable in any industry. She is becoming well known and popular. Hobbamock (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hobbamock, it isn't all about awards, but what part of WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG do you think she meets? Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have is that there are only three criteria and the one most folks reference are the awards. But even by the other two definitions, most performers would never qualify - so therefore they rely on the awards section. I say, so what! So what if they don't meet one of the three criteria? Are they still not known in the industry? Do they still not have fans? Are there not people that are possibly looking for just a little bit more information about them because they are curious? Nothing is ever more frustrating than to try and find easy information and it isn't there. Only because they haven't won an award or been fortunate enough to play a bit role in mainstream media. Hobbamock (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. -Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. -Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

Delete - As about as notable as my left foot!, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on that's rubbish mate. You and your left foot would never be nominated for a award in a billion dollar industry... 58.106.231.148 (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source it to GNG standards or lose it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No convincingly better signs of a better applicable notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McClain[edit]

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

The entire article relies on one, neither extensive, nor reliable, source. Schuddeboomw (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant independent coverage. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Karin[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 00:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absent a clearly articulated deletion rationale. While the article is less than adequate, IMDB shows roughly 20 roles (some rather minor), including a regular role in a very notable US network TV show (because it was a notorious flop) and a billed role in Sophie's Choice. You needs more than a just-not-notable statement to overcome that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Hullaballoo - IMDB shows quite a few roles and plus I'd imagine most sources would either be in books, magazines or newspapers ...... –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IBDB lists her in four Broadway stage plays; AFI catalog shows five feature films; Lortel Archives lists her in four off-Broadway productions. A search through Google Books turns up many mentions in entertainment books and magazines, such as this 1987 New York magazine showing her in a play. The article could be expanded, but she does appear to be notable.— Maile (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. With no prejudice to renomination if sources cannot be found in the future. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jiading City[edit]

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

Unreferenced article. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete - Non-notable, amateur team that does not pass WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plays in the fourth level in China. Being unreferenced is not a reason for deletion. Would be interested to know whether the GNG claim is based on a search in Chinese? There is rather a lot of web content if you search by the club's Chinese name. Number 57 13:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @JMHamo: Just realised that the club competed in the 2015 Chinese FA Cup, so meets the WP:FOOTYN standard for clubs. Number 57 14:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Number 57: Excellent, thanks for letting me know. I have struck my Delete !vote... JMHamo (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was also going to suggest renaming but someone already did. Passes FOOTYN as described above. J04n(talk page) 15:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in the 2015 Chinese FA Cup per this and this a national competition.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as said above it passes notability as the team has played in the domestic cup. Qed237 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G11) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourabh J sarkar[edit]

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

Although mentioned in Internet sources, none discuss him in any detail. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Purely promotional text about non-notable person and his organisations. The article has been deleted multiple times under different titles and salting it might be a good idea. --bonadea contributions talk 11:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, sorry about that. I didn't realize it had been deleted before. Several spelling variants had been created and deleted. I didn't know because of, well the story here. This subject also has been created here, here, and at User:Sowmit85 and User:Sowmit85/sandbox. Bottom line, I AfDd instead of speedy because I didn't know the whole story and it googled. Now, I see Wikipedia has been bombed with this subject, which adds up to promo. SNOW-SPEEDY-SALT seems in order here. I'll also talk to the creators asking them to stop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's impossible to keep up with all the serial spammers around, and erring on the side of caution by taking an article to AfD is a good principle. --bonadea contributions talk 08:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn spam. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non-notable; spam. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 06:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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