Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 February	26 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 02:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Prakash Dutta (writer)[edit]

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

This person is not notable. Another person of the same has WP page at J. P. Dutta. Note that the names are the same and only the first two words are abbreviated. Regards, Prof TPMS (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator""" as per talk page consensus.
Keep : Jyoti Prakash Dutta or J. P. Dutta is an Indian film producer. This Jyoti Prakash Dutta (writer) is a Bangladeshi short-story writer. He was awarded the most prestiguous Ekushey Padak (highest honor for any Bangladeshi writer) by the Government of Bangladesh. Garnering an Ekushey Padak clearly makes the subject notable per WP:ANYBIO. ~Altaf~ (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Ekushey Padak is one of the most notable award in Bangladesh, given by the Govt. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:ANYBIO criterion #1 because of the Ekushey Padak. Not sure how nom's observation about the name is meant to figure into the reason for deletion. Same name, two completely different people. If that wasn't clear, perhaps nom would like to withdraw the nomination so that it can be speedily kept. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:20, 28 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) 00:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Union International[edit]

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

No relevant references. Promotional. Possibly delusional/quackery Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional article per WP:PROMOTION. No news articles/nothing I could find for note-worthy keep. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a brief name-check in an e-book though that is of unknown importance and reliability. I don't see that as sufficient evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is vague and doesn't seem to convey much by way of useful detail. As already noted above, there is a lack of reliable sources- there are remarks in ebooks indicating that the organisation was used as a vehicle to promote a theory, but this isn't enough to establish notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Drchriswilliams on this. I've read the article and it is very vague. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:23, 27 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. Ignoring a WP:COI editor's comments, unanimous agreement to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language Creation Society[edit]

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

All sources are either blogs or related to conlang.org, the main website to Language Creation Society (LCS) per WP:SPAM promotion. Also, no news worthy articles have shown up on Google search. Obviously an attempt to advertise per WP:NOTADVERTISING. JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the notability, and the tone is indeed slightly promotional, but the article does seem to list at least one independent source. This interview says it's a longer version of something originally published in eo:La Usona Esperantisto. I've also checked the other independent ref [1] but this doesn't seem to mention the society at all. Uanfala (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Dothraki language (prefer delete): The only thing they've done that's noteworthy is refer the Game of Thrones producers to the guy who created that language. Everything else, and I mean everything else appears to be fluff of no consequence. I prefer delete because their only connection to Dothraki is that referral (to someone who I believe was a board member), rather than actually creating the language. With all due respect, this is a UC Berkeley student group that the creators kept doing after they graduated. That's not notable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, let's point out once again that notability is not a hard rule, and the corresponding page make it clear that the only thing that really matters is significant coverage in significant sources. More importantly, however, let's not forget that notability is relative. I am ready to believe that for people involved in subjects like mathematics, religion, politics or the Twilight series, the whole subject of language creation may seem futile, and I will certainly not dispute that in terms of notability the LCS as a subject cannot compete with Pythagoras, Edward Cullen or Kim Jung-Un. But within the field of constructed languages, the LCS is not only significant, it's crucial. Frankly, I've no idea where the assertion comes from that there are "no news worthy articles". There's a fairly long list of articles in the press about the LCS or at least mentioning it, and I could start giving links, but one might just as well have a look here. On Google Books and Google Scholar you can find numerous references to the LCS too, also in the scientific press, and many of these occurrences are far from trivial and completely unrelated to Dothraki. It may be true that most of the references used in the article are essentially primary sources, but on the other hand, I'd say we're way beyond the stage that articles are supposed to provide lists of references with the sole purpose of proving that the subject is noteworthy.
That the whole thing is just a bunch of former UC Berkeley students is plain nonsense; the LCS may well have originated there (any organisation has to originate somewhere, doesn't it?), but at present it has members all over the world, and the current president is a Frenchman living in the Netherlands. Merging this article into Dothraki language is not an option; even if Dothraki is probably the LCS main achievement, its activity reaches much further than that (including the biannual Language Creation Conferences, also referred to in quite a number of articles).
At last, I'm sorry to mention this again, but I would appreciate it very much if Wikipedians could refrain from using terms like "advertising" and "spam" for subjects they consider obscure or otherwise don't care for. Personally, I don't see how this article is promotional in any way (and mind, as an admin on WP:NL I've deleted tons of promo stuff myself), but if somebody thinks otherwise, this can simply be remedied by rewriting a few sentences. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: IJzeren Jan (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

- As you appear to be a member of the LCS board of directors, I can understand your frustration, but let's try to stay objective here. Virtually everything dealing with LCS out there is cursory mentions—clearly not rising to the level of "significant coverage" required by our notability guidelines. That little that might be more substantial appears to be in dealing with Dothraki. The creation conferences themselves aren't independently notable, and their existence doesn't convey notability onto the organization itself. For an interest group, even a niche one, created in the last two decades that by its very nature has largely resided in newsgroups and bulletin boards, 164 ghits is a bad sign. Reviewing these demonstrates that the sole newsworthy event touching on the LCS is that the creator of Dothraki is one of its founders, and is a former president. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does me being a member of the LCS invalidate my arguments? Unless I'm mistaken, an AfD is not a vote, it's all about reasonable, policy-based arguments, so making the COI point is pretty much using an ad hominem argument. Besides, anybody's personal involvement in a subject is likely to mean that this person knows what he is talking about, isn't it? For your information, I have been spending most of my life reading and writing about constructed languages and I have also been working on the corresponding section on this wiki for twelve years now, including maintaining P:CL virtually on my own (long before the LCS ever existed, and even much longer before I became a member). Therefore, when a deletion discussion about a related subject comes up, I feel fully entitled to participate. Mind you, I never participate in discussions about fields I'm not knowledgeable about. So please keep it civil and do not address me like some frustrated 17 years old. I have no personal interest whatsoever in preserving this article, and if there's anything that I find frustrating, it's rather the fact that these discussion are often dominated by people who know a lot about policy, but little or nothing about the subject itself.
    BTW, you are mistaken about Dothraki. It is not true that the creator of Dothraki accidentally became president of the LCS at some point, the language was in fact commissioned to the LCS, and via the LCS to David Peterson. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 19:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator unless someone can demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 09:16, 3 March 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) 23:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Ramkissoon[edit]

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

Non-notable individual only known for WP:1EVENT. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS reddogsix (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BLP1E, as known only for 1 incident that attracted a bit of media attention. No depth of coverage of her, as required by WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject was involved in an insignificant drunken dispute which received some local media attention, which falls under WP:BLP1E. Meatsgains (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The media attention was clearly more than local -- we live in an age fascinated by filmed embarrassment -- but fails WP:BLP1E, to be sure. A rather textbook example, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one event, so fails WP:BLP1E Atlantic306 (talk) 03:27, 28 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) 23:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clicksor[edit]

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

Looks promotional, sources could be found but lack reliability or depth of coverage. Peter James (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable network and page reads like a puff piece. Meatsgains (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing on Highbeam except some listings, some uncomplimentary opinions on Google search. I am seeing nothing to suggest that the previous AfD decision should not be confirmed. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's quite a large advertising network, but also notorious for serving up malware. Just Google clicksor malware for a variety of comments, or have a look at the Tweets from this security researcher. I'm not sure which of those many, many references would be suitable to cite from though. At present it looks like an advertising puff piece rather than representing a balanced point of view about its subject. I personally think that it should either be expanded to include the widely reported negative factors or deleted. Shritwod (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as over promotional and not reflecting a neutral, balanced viewpolnt as the problems mentioned above are not covered. A better article on the subject could be created in future.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:33, 28 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb haskell[edit]

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

Barely escapes the speedy deletion criteria but this should still be deleted. This teenager is simply not notable and some of the claims are preposterous. For instance the article says that in 2013, he had a number 1 Billboard single as a 14 year old. In fact, iTunes has never heard the name "Caleb haskell". The article is currently entirely unreferenced and it's pretty clear from the username that the editor is editing with a conflict of interest. Pichpich (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unsourced article, whose only substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC is verifiably false — in addition to iTunes, I checked Billboard's chart archive and there's no indication of him ever having a charting hit there either. While a Google search verifies that he exists per social media presence, there's zero reliable source coverage — basically, this is a classic case of "musician who wants to use Wikipedia for PR purposes creates article containing false or self-aggrandizing claims that aren't actually verifiable as true". Delete, no prejudice against recreation, in a more neutral, encyclopedic and properly referenced form, in the future if and when he can actually be properly sourced as passing NMUSIC for something. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Bearcat. Simply not notable whatsoever."Hey there! How's it goin'?" 03:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly there's barely anything here, including anything for the applicable music notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 1 March 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mc Keezy K[edit]

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

Notability of the artist questionable Backendgaming (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone decided to move the AFD from "Mc Keezy K" to "Jeaneo" and then finally to "Oririo" - No idea why either, Anyway have asked Na1k to move it back, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable singer, Fails NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sufficient non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indication how widely distributed his mixtapes are and just releasing them isn't a mark of notability. If he has a sustained career of success or cultural influence, I think he might warrant an article but not yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 2 March 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar al serhan[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:PROF jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I hesitated jumping in, because if I am being honest w/ myself, Marketing science is a field I may be biased against and can't trust my judgment to be neutral about it in general. But he's a 2016 Ph.D. w/o a record of major publication, which is almost always almost a decade WP:TOOSOON for any field. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article presents no claim of notability which in any case as Mscuthbert has already stated is unlikely at this stage of his career. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G3 - blatant hoax — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox Airlines[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure that this is not notable, but I may be wrong. OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedy Delete As something completed made up by the author. This is utter rubbish to be blunt. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:11, 25 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Triangle (Missouri)[edit]

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

Was originally Prodded, contested at WP:REFUND. Unsourced since 2006. I can not find any sources to support this geographic area being notable. -- GB fan 15:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ⁓ Unsourced Dziban303 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP region; basically just another suburban region filling in blanks west of St. Louis. Nate • (chatter) 17:14, 25 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Osborne[edit]

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

Very little claim to notability: most of it is unsourced and the references are minimal in covering him in any detail. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Community activist far from notable. Page reads like a puff piece. Meatsgains (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ⁓ Notable? No. Dziban303 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I note that the main contributor to this article appears to have a close connection to the subject, as the only other article that this user has contributed to is Harold Thornton where this edit included the text "Information sourced from Family History Records kept by Chris Osborne, great-nephew." Kerry (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 25 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 Grammy Award for Album of the Year. Everything relevant seems to already be merged, so I will redirect it after letting the close script do all the tagging Courcelles (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Artists and Groups who have won the Grammy Award for Album of the Year more than once as the main credited artist[edit]

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

This article is essentially just a subset of winners listed in the article Grammy Award for Album of the Year, grouped by artist. This club is likely not notable enough on its own to warrant an article and instead could be mentioned in a single paragraph on the Grammy Award for Album of the Year article, rather than having a separate article that essentially repeats all the info. Also, the use of album covers in the table likely violates WP:NONFREE. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Y2Kcrazyjoker4 said "likely not notable enough on its own to warrant an article" that's ridiculous in my opinion. Eric Cable | Talk 16:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a more useful justification for keeping the article beyond "that's ridiculous"? If we have an article like this, why not have one called "List of artists who have won the Grammy Award for Record of the Year Award in consecutive years for songs from the same album"? It just does not warrant its own article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic can easily be covered within already existing articles such as Grammy Award for Album of the Year especially as there are only five entries so does not meet criteria for a separate stand-alone list. Use of album covers clearly violates non free policy. Cowlibob (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needless content fork. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CONTENTFORK. The info does not merit a separate article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary listcruft. This as stated above can be covered in an already existing article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete it. I don't care anymore. I just get disappointed with stuff like this. I spend time creating content and then someone wipes their backside on it. Eric Cable | Talk 20:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons already stated above. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article creator is now indef'd and it appears to be snowing here too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No longer indeffed but the snow is still likely. No vote here but wouldn't support that the content could be covered elsewhere be better a merge than a delete? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a needless content fork; can easily be covered at Grammy Award for Album of the Year. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Grammy Award for Album of the Year. I appreciate Eric's effort to create the list yet it is WP:CFORK and can be easily merged to said list. -- Frankie _talk 08:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, unnecessary creation. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have added sentences covering this article topic in the Grammy Award for Album of the Year.[[2]] Cowlibob (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - content fork. -Zanhe (talk) 07:51, 29 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. The !votes for Keep would indicate that this article meets the requirements for passing GNG. While the initial AfD was no consensus, the strength of the Keep arguments in this discussion outweigh the Delete points of view. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016 Paris police station attack[edit]

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

Previous discussion resulted in no consensus. Per WP:NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopaedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Is already included in List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016. This was simply a routine local crime. AusLondonder (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was anything but a "routine local crime," as Nom would have it. "routine local crimes" do not involve investigations by police in multiple countries, or draw extensive, in depth coverage in international sources. This ISIS-inspired attack got the attention to pass WP:GNG. What the article actually need is expanded sourcing in languages including German and French. A section needs tobe added, for example, on the lawsuit apparently filed in French courts by this jihadist's family for wrongful death. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep for now - Per E.M.Gregory. This article could use a little more work, but other than that, I don't see why this should be deleted. Parsley Man (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody killed and pretty much routine; sadly the 'person of questionable sanity deciding to try to get into a police station' story is pretty common and most times results in either the person being easily stopped and arrested or more rarely, being killed. They get past, that's different, but it didn't happen here. Nate • (chatter) 05:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mrschimpf's is Not a policy-based comment. The question here is not whether you personally think this was a routine crime, but whether coverage in reliable sources was local and treated it as routine crime, or whether the coverage was international, in depth, and treated by the press and public figures/authorities as more than a routine, local crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This meets the very definition of WP:NCRIME, a known policy. "ISIS-inspired" is the new "Al-Queda inspired", as it would be "IRA-inspired" or "Nazi-inspired" in the past. At best, redirect to the List of would be supported. Nate • (chatter) 14:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This ISIS-inspired attack got the attention to pass WP:GNG. plenty of reliable sourcing as well. BabbaQ (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is the case with these averted attacks, there is a wealth of WP:ROUTINE coverage consistent with the 24-hour news cycle, and scant follow-up references to demonstrate any level of enduring notability – therefore a failure to meet WP:GNG. I disagree with E.M. Gregory's assertions above that coverage is "in depth" and "extensive" – having read the references given, I would conclude that the standard of coverage is no more extensive than the level that would be expected from any newspaper reporting on the facts of any attempted murder. The argument that the incident is notable because coverage was international is not backed up by any policy – routine international coverage is still routine coverage, and does not demonstrate any enduring notability. I would support merging the content into the proposed list of failed terrorist attacks which generated some support at this related AfD, but I would delete this article. Aspirex (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~I would support the proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 New Year's attack plots and Aspirex's proposal to Merge this article and 2015 New Year's attack plots to a new article with~~ User:Spirit Ethanol's proposed title List of unsuccessful plots inspired or directed by ISIL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC) I no longer support merge, with thanks to User:Gerry1214 for teh storng, Deutsch sourcing. I do support creation of a List of unsuccessful plots inspired or by ISIL form which this article can be linked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Name should be List of unsuccessful plots inspired or by ISIL, or inspired should be clarified in article. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I added various sources (and definitely could find much more) how this case fueled the discussion in German media (and not only there) about refugees, their registration and identification, terrorism and much more. This article definitely meets WP:GNG, and it is linked in the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany article, as the case was discussed in the media in the context of these events. And I heavily doubt that a 2nd AfD discussion is needed about this.--Gerry1214 (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Tours stabbings also a lone-wolf stabbing attack on a police station in France.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a minor local event, which only reached headlines because of heightened sensitivity in Paris, especially on the anniversary of Charlie Hebdo. There is no indication of lasting coverage. If it does turn out to be a historic event it can be re-created. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

au contraire see, or example this 19 February CNN report [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't abide that. That CNN article states clearly at the top that it is periodically updated - in other words, it is an evergreen list to which CNN adds every terrorist attack as it reports on it. For you to put that up as evidence that this particular incident has gained ongoing coverage is either misguided or misleading. Aspirex (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. But even if I hastily happened to post an article that was updated a month after the attack, it is the assertion that coverage was local, brief and routine that false. As editors have said better than I below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter for what reason an attack on a police station becomes the topic international and national headlines. WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:CRIME all stipulate the type of international press attention that this attack received as indicating notability.

WP:RAPID exists precisely because of the lamentable inefficiency of crystal balls, it is policy because you/we cannot yet know how lasting the significance of this event will prove. This Deutsche Welle article [4] will give editors new to this topic an idea of the kind of international attention paid to this incident.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree E.M.Gregory. "Minor local event" is obviously wrong. As anyone can read in the article, it is an international event that received significant and ongoing international reception since it happened.--Gerry1214 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerry1214: What "international reception" would that be? If this was an international event what countries were involved? What countries sent aid or issued travel warnings? AusLondonder (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent international newsmedia (UK & USA are overrepresented here, as this is an English page, but also Germany and France, surely more countries) reported, an attacker who travelled in from Tunisia over Romania through the EU to Germany, had 20 identities in 7 different countries, a broad reception in France [5], Spain [6], even more in Germany because of the significant political implications - what is "local" in this case? Events are not notable because of travel warnings or aid offers (WP only would have articles about natural disasters then), but because of WP:GNG. --Gerry1214 (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Online news coverage on a couple of days is not what I view as "significant and ongoing international reception" AusLondonder (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your view which is essential, but WP:GNG. Online/offline is not decisive as long as the sources are reliable, it was much more than "a couple of days", and "ongoing" coverage over weeks is not even needed, but existing here. I wonder why I have to lead this odd discussion here.--Gerry1214 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per Gerry1214 + this case molds public opinion on Category:Crimes related to the European migrant crisis. Stefanomione (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefanomione: - with respect, is your rationale for keeping because it is a member of a cat that is about to be deleted? AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondoner: - with respect, is your motivation for WP:BLUDGEONing that you dislike all articles about the horror of Islamist terrorism?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder. Oh dear the irony og E.M.Gregory accusing others of bludgeoning. Take a look at what you've done above. AusLondonder (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ⁓ I guess I don't really understand why it was nom'd to begin with. Seems a perfectly valid article. Dziban303 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So many news articles about it, don't really see the reason why it was Nfd. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JudeccaXIII: - Haven't you ever heard of WP:NOTNEWS AusLondonder (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A unique infiltration method (many passports) with impact beyond the regular news cycle. Still being covered in the news (mentioned today in this CNN video). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable event for the large amount of coverage and unusual nature of the crime. Yes, perhaps the other attacks on Paris did raise the profile of this attack somewhat, but that's the way that news (and the interest of the public) works. Shritwod (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shritwod: - Haven't you ever heard of WP:NOTNEWS AusLondonder (talk) 10:11, 27 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 keep. Many of the arguments for deletion rest on the article being unsourced. Since that reasoning is no longer valid, I'm closing this as a procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination. Courcelles (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luljeta Hoxha[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Unsourced. Article created by a SPA. Mondiad (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For all reasons above: notability, unsourced BLP, and SPA who created the page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an unsourced BLP, it should be WP:BLPPRODed. KSFT ^C 02:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though it's currently BLPRODed so I suppose we'll see what happens first. No better signs of better satisfying the applicable creative biographies notability anyway. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. I agree with the arguments above and I also could not find any sources to establish notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither the nominator not any of the contributors above seems to have noticed the corresponding article on Albanian Wikipedia, from which this one looks likely to have been translated and which does have some references. Not !voting here because I don't know Albanian and Google Translate tends to mangle citations even worse than standard text. PWilkinson (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. Here's the Albanian Wikipedia article and translation. We certainly have no demand that someone perhaps notable to and in Albania "must" have English-language sources in order to be notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the user Besa61 that created the correspondent article in the Albanian Wikipedia is a SPA. Have a look at it. I have nothing against the article or the person, but the only notable thing about her is that she is a member of the local theater crew. There is no notability justified, not even within the Albanian wikipedia. I checked all the sources there, they are dead links or articles about the theatrical play itself, the person in the article is not mentioned anywhere. There have been countless attempts (still going) on creating these self-promoting articles. I think we should be bold be bold on this. --Mondiad (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with thanks to the good sense of PWilkinson. Now that it is sourced (and BLP Prod removed), I think it behooves us to get input from Albanian Wikipedians, specially as it seems unknown here does not mean unknown there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ⁓ (Now) Sourced Dziban303 (talk) 16:16, 25 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction Games[edit]

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

The current state of the article does not show why the company is notable, at the moment it is just a list of games they've ported, and similar to Nixxes, that does not prove why it is notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as as barely passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. While having ported/published notable video games is WP:NOTINHERITED, the developer themselves has received some coverage. Of the sources present [7] looks good and [8] seems in-depth, while [9] can supplement well. There is not a lot to write, but it's the kind of history and development info we want. All their games and releases are well-sourced(able). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with Hellknowz. Article does nothing but list the games ported/released, which seems defensible given the good/extensive sources -- Hybris1984 (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like this company had been discussed several times in niche venues mostly designed for gamers, but I was not able to find any evidence of it having been the subject of broader interest. KDS4444^Talk 09:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy if needed as all of this is still questionable for solid independent notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG in my opinion; just because they port notable games does not mean they are notable for doing so. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Torres Menchaca[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, written suspiciously much more like a public relations advertisement than an encyclopedia article, and not supported by any reliable source coverage about the subject -- the sourcing here is entirely to IMDb, blogs, Facebook and his own self-published résumé on LinkedIn. As always, an actor does not gain an automatic entitlement to have a PR-toned article on Wikipedia just because he exists -- he must be the subject of substantive coverage in independent sources, verifying a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NACTOR, to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article and modified the language to be more partial and descriptive as an encyclopedia article.

I decided to add Alejandro Torres Menchaca after reading two articles in magazines that were published In the last month. and then looking him up in wikipedia to find more information and not finding anything.

I started my research on the internet, first I went to IMDb and verified his film history. There I found his acting biography written by Max Singer, I contacted Max Singer and he agreed to use this text on Wikipedia. I recently modified his words to make the article more partial.

Then I googled him and found the project "Pecado Original" and all the Paraguayan articles from Magazines and Newspapers talking about the movie and this actors work.

I also went online and verified there were actual ticket sales for the theater projects that are mentioned on his IMDb pro.

Finally i integrated the information on the two printed articles that talk about the projects Pecado Original, Rey and his work as an Entrepreneur,

One of the articles (Revista "Emprendedores") mentions Kinomark.com and how he started the project and failed and how he learned from his failure, It also mentions his Movie Pecado Original and Rey. The other article (Revista "Cine y Más") talks about his moving to LA and studying at Stella Adler and Lee Strasberg, It also mentions The movies Pecado Original and Rey.

I will keep updating the Wikipedia article as I find more electronic articles and news. Though the article is fully based on published information and there are online articles and references about most of the information.

Acting Career http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4157163/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm ^[1]

News Online Articles for Pecado Original http://www.hoy.com.py/espectaculos/paraguaya-finaliza-pelicula-pecado-original-en-california ^[2] http://www.lanacion.com.py/2015/10/22/pecado-original-una-nueva-pelicula-con-sello-paraguayo ^[3] http://www.noticine.com/iberoamerica/36-iberoamerica/23681-qpecado-originalq-nuevo-proyecto-paraguayo-coescrito-y-protagonizado-en-eeuu-por-maia-nikiphoroff.html ^[4] http://www.ultimahora.com/nueva-comedia-negra-paraguaya-llegara-los-cines-2016-n941051.html ^[5]

Plays Authentication http://losangeles.bitter-lemons.com/2013/10/28/titus-andronicus-a-vaudeville/#sthash.VEqDOS3D.dpbs ^[6] http://heyevent.com/event/wtohthouaobdqa/angels-in-america ^[7] http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/928968 ^[8]

Article that also talks about his moving to LA https://icono2015.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/alejandro-torres-menchaca/ ^[9]

Post that also Talks about Kinomark.com http://lamoscafilms.tumblr.com ^[10]

References

^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4157163/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
^ http://www.hoy.com.py/espectaculos/paraguaya-finaliza-pelicula-pecado-original-en-california
^ http://www.lanacion.com.py/2015/10/22/pecado-original-una-nueva-pelicula-con-sello-paraguayo/
^ http://www.noticine.com/iberoamerica/36-iberoamerica/23681-qpecado-originalq-nuevo-proyecto-paraguayo-coescrito-y-protagonizado-en-eeuu-por-maia-nikiphoroff.html
^ http://www.ultimahora.com/nueva-comedia-negra-paraguaya-llegara-los-cines-2016-n941051.html
^ http://losangeles.bitter-lemons.com/2013/10/28/titus-andronicus-a-vaudeville/#sthash.VEqDOS3D.dpbs
^ http://heyevent.com/event/wtohthouaobdqa/angels-in-america
^ http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/928968
^ https://icono2015.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/alejandro-torres-menchaca/
^ http://lamoscafilms.tumblr.com

All work relations and Projects can be verified on IMDb and on the cast lists of the plays he worked.Filmmexico (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb cannot support notability, in and of itself, in a Wikipedia article — it's permitted only as an external link, and not even as a reference for anything, per WP:IMDB/RS. Wordpress blogs cannot support notability; the cast list of a play on that play's own production website or a ticket sales website cannot support notability; Tumblrs cannot support notability. Of the sources you've listed here, the only ones that even count as acceptable references at all are the news articles, and even they all just namecheck his existence a single time while failing to be about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not better satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, [10] mentions him, and if the creator has also two articles about the actor in off-line journals, this should be sufficient. The articles obviously need to be cited, and if the article is kept, it would require some cleanup.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Non-notable. 161.113.11.16 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:10, 5 March 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavesh k pandey[edit]

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

Autobiography of a non-notable person. Google/Google news search does not give any third party websites. Gaurav (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vanity page. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should Not Delete - Genuine Page - This is all about a person who is working for youth and somehow connected with a political party. He is much active and Social media tools are showing his activities. This page should not be deleted from Wikipedia. John Vinai —Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Genuine" doesn't come into it, but if the person is notable. See WP:N. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Vinai has just one edit (the one above). He is most probably a sockpuppet of User:Bhaveshkpandey. --Gaurav (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that if it seems a fake person who doesn't exist in real world then it should be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvinai (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, "John". That's not how it works. Read this article: WP:Notability --OpenFuture (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed this article about Bhavesh K Pandey, I am a new contributor so can you people please tell me that how this article cane be made better according to norms. And if the person can't be taken as notable person then it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candlewickindia (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find sources that show that he is a notable person. See WP:N. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make it better, I found so many prominent people including PM Narendra Modi personally follows Bhavesh K Pandey on twitter. I added some sources too but these are in Hindi Language content. Let's see my first article will succeed or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candlewickindia (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~The Hindi newspapers he has provided as refernces are not very well known. I am from India, speak Hindi, but have never heard of those newspapers.~~ --Gaurav (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per the general notability guidelines there needs to be significant coverage about Bhavesh k pandey in reliable sources that are independent of him. That means his Facebook page doesn't count because that's not independent, and neither does the pages of the organisation he is involved with. You need several major national or regional, or international, newspapers writing articles that talk about him in depth. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!'OpenFuture', I understand, then how can I delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candlewickindia (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add your opinion to this page, and note that you are the creator and main contributor. That should do it. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am not good in Wikipedia so will you please tell me how could I Delete this page. Because I don't want a page which is not acceptable by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.16.30.229 (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is a part of the procedure to delete a page, so it has already been started. It will take some time, it is a slow process, to make sure nothing gets deleted by mistake. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should leave it to Wikipedia official team that this Article will be deleted or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.16.30.229 (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators decision will be mainly based on the conclusion of this discussion, which is why it's helpful if you add your opinion, as the others did above. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A note for participants of the discussion. Johnvinai, and Candlewickindia have been indef blocked for being sockpuppets of Bhaveshkpandey as per this sockpuppet investigation [[11]]. Cowlibob (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable yet. Fails WP:BIO. utcursch | talk 22:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-G7. The author (or their sock or as IP user) with the only substantial content has requested deletion here in good faith. Vipinhari || talk 09:00, 28 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 Loyola Marymount University. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Catholic Thought and Imagination[edit]

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

Article, which was written by a WP:SPA for the sole purpose of creating this article, is only supported by references that lack independence from the subject. This "academy" is a very new organization, and I did not see significant coverage of it in legitimate sources (as yet). Given the all but certain COI editing which produced this page and the paucity of its references, I'd like to nominate it for deletion. KDS4444^Talk 22:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per (well written) nom. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Loyola Marymount University , where a section on the page already exists. This news search [12] simply does not support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect -- I note there is a copy-vio issue on the article too. Since the address is "4th floor, ..." it cannot be very large, however important. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Loyola Marymount University, clearly not-notable. Fails WP:BRANCH. Blythwood (talk) 01:10, 28 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Savage (British)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television presenter, which does little more than assert that he exists and cites no reliable source coverage at all to make his existence noteworthy. As always, a television personality is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- RS coverage, supporting a notability claim that would satisfy WP:CREATIVE, must be present to support it. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Richardson (presenter), a colleague of Savage's who was deleted a few weeks ago for also being completely unsourced and unsourceable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is notable for working for multiple companies such as Ginx TV and Disney. He is notable, probably more so than your example, as he presents Planet of the Apps as well as The First Hour. It was also recently announced that he will be presenting the arcade portion of The Gadget Show Live. Feel free to add content to the page but don't delete it. Matt14451 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are not passed by asserting that they're passed. They're passed by reliably sourcing that they're passed, and no claim of notability, not even "president of the entire world", confers an exemption from having to meet WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, a media person will naturally feature in a lot of websites, that's their job. What's needed is evidence that they're notable in that people have written articles about them. Plenty of writers at content farms probably write ten articles a day or more. That doesn't make them notable. Blythwood (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets none of the standards of WP:CREATIVE as having worked for a number of different television brands is not in itself an indication of notability. There is nothing when searching for "Adam Savage" and "The First Hour". Even if the tv shows mentioned above are notable, the presenter mentioned here clearly is not. JMWt (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. There is agreement to delete this page and to restore material at the Mexican cumbia article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbia sonidera[edit]

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

An unsourced article written in so bad English that it's hard to make any sense out of it. The article was created 6 March 2008, and it has less than 200 edits. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mexican cumbia. It's hard to find reliable sources, at least in English, and it's mentioned as a subgenre in Mexican Cumbia, it should be possible there to mention the differences. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for chiming in, OpenFuture! Indeed, it seems that Cumbia sonidera was part of the Mexican cumbia article still back in 7 March 2008‎[13], before the user Mexicumbia transformed the section into its' very own article. He seems to have communicated this here[14] and here[15].
- I'd suggest the deletion of this article, and restoring the previous material at Mexican cumbia. What do you think? :-P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 25 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of killings by law enforcement officers by countries[edit]

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

Unclear what this list is about. Are the killings unlawful? If so, are they done "on the job", or by a law enforcement officer in their spare time? It mentions China, is that Republic of China or the People's Republic of China? The reference of Brazil says

At least 2,212 people were killed by the police in Brazil in 2013, according to the Brazilian Public Security Forum, an independent research group, and experts say the actual number is probably substantially higher because some states do not report killings by their police forces.

So the source self says the number is unreliable. Seems like WP:SYNTH to me. Soetermans. T / C 13:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to ask these questions would have been the creator's talk page before starting an AFD. They're clearly brand new and nominating their only contribution for deletion within a day after they created it without trying to discuss it with them first is rather WP:BITEy (even if it should ultimately be deleted). postdlf (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should've done so. I'll leave a personal message at their talk page. --Soetermans. T / C 10:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes I agree. See WP:ODNT too. @Soetermans: You might coax them towards a merge with Lists of killings by law enforcement officers, that is, make this (latter) article more than just a list and add some encyclopedic value to it. Aoziwe (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic looks perfectly encyclopedic and I'm not seeing a coherent rationale for deletion. It is obvious from the links given that plenty of reliable sources on the topic of the number of people killed by law enforcement in various countries and territories, and that there are many organisations which try to come up with estimates. I don't view the quotation above as saying that the number is unreliable, just that it's a conservative estimate rather than an exact figure. We have plenty of lists of figures where the available reliable sources can't be precise or where they differ - we just indicate that and if they disagree we give the competing estimates. Look at List of wars by death toll where the estimates differ by tens of millions. More sources and statistics would certainly help and may answer some of the questions raised above, although honestly some of the answers are pretty obvious (no, these aren't unlawful killings, and "China" almost certainly refers to the PRC as in common usage). That's hardly a reason for deletion though. Hut 8.5 23:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge: I agree the article should be merged with Lists of killings by law enforcement officers. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Lists of killings by law enforcement officers - per WP:LISTN. It seems notable per the sources cited, and seems to meet WP:LISTN. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:15, 26 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stream-Framework[edit]

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

Doubtful if this is notable enough Muzammil (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No support for notability. The authors of the framework has built a service which has been noted to have gotten investment, but the framework itself has zero media coverage, or indeed zero coverage outside it's own documentation, that I can find. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing else better, the current article has not further convincing signs of a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Nunataks, where the content of this article have already been merged into. Der yck C. 19:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommeliten Rock[edit]

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

An article about a rock in Antarctica... is no way notable and does not meet WP:GNG. Sources do not turn up anything notable. Will211 (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ahlmann Ridge, which presently has no mention of this geographic feature. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question: It's a GNIS location. When are GNIS locations notable, and when not? What about wp:GEOLAND. I wonder if it is a climbing target. Also because "Tom Thumb" is good name for a rock that looks like a thumb, there will be other locations of this name, so the page could be converted to a disambiguation page.

Or this Tommeliten Rock and others could be mentioned at a Tommeliten disambiguation page. This page suggests there could be a "Tommeliten Rock" in Svalbard or nearby, towards the other polar extreme. Also on the Sognalsfjorden extension of the Sognefjord in Norway, there is a Tommeliten which may be a "crag", i.e. pretty much would be a rock or a peak. Here is a pic of rock-climbing on Tommeliten.

Hmm, here is page indicating that Antarctica's Tommeliten Rock is also known as Tommeliten and is a 993 meter hill (or peak?). That is high, in Antarctica, I think. It seems to be a significant geographical feature. Also it seems to be the location of a "seep ecosystem" or a "methane seep", so some sources that at first look like they could be about the North Sea oil field may be about the Antarctic location.

There's an important Tommeliten oil field in the North Sea where for example Conoco was prepared to invest $2.24 billion. --do ncr am 02:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note for the height, List of mountains of East Antarctica lists the tallest peaks in East Antarctica, where the rock is located. The peaks listed are 2,000+ meters, so 993 meters probably is not considered "tall" for Antarctica. Will211 (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a nunatak, now included in the list of them, and this seems to be a striking geographic feature. Google satellite view on the coords I added into a reference in the article shows it. --do ncr am 02:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added Category:Nunataks of Queen Maud Land. It is one of 87 nunataks each having a short article. All 87 of these, plus others in other sections of Antarctica, could possibly be merged into a list-article of them. And each topic could be changed to be a redirect to the corresponding list-item. However keeping all as separate articles is also okay, and easier. --do ncr am 02:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but.... On the face of it, there's nothing really notable here. I took a look at a random sampling of articles from Category:Nunataks of Queen Maud Land. My overall impression is that combining them all into a single article or list would be the right thing to do. It's worth discussing (I'm not sure what the right forum would be) the idea of a big merge. But, until we decide to do that, picking one arbitrary one to nuke just seems silly. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nunataks. Not enough notability for a standalone article. Will incorporate all these stubs into the list article, which as RoySmith and Doncram point out, would make a nice substantial list article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to G-Shock. Given the copyright violation problem, which appears to have been introduced into the article in 2013, and discounting the sockpuppetry, I'm choosing to delete and redirect this page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio DW-5000C[edit]

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

No indication of notability other than as a collector's item. Merge into G-Shock? BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect into G-Shock. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Casio is one of Japan's greatest and most well known companies and there is no reason to delete this article. JSDeme (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect This is apparently the first G-Shock containing history about the creation not written at that article. The history should be noted there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admins I found out that most of the text is from this article unchanged. When it gets to the "In 1983 the debut G-Shock model" paragraph it stops copying after that sentence. That paragraph was the original page lead. An IP added most of the nippon.com text on top of that: diff. In the past I saw something like this called copyright violation. However this is a really good G-Shock source to be utilized with more paraphrasing. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 25 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Odinga[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. One 2 gnews hit. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. My news sweeps found only mentions, sometimes in connection with a pyramid scheme scandal.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:08, 27 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplex Channel[edit]

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

Non notable channel with no significant coverage on any reliable source. Better needed to be evacuated from Wikipedia SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 12:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 12:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 12:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 08:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, and the creator/author have made no attempt of improving the article despite listing. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice, due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:23, 25 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. Two relists, time to call it. Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Shams Aldden[edit]

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

Autobiography of minor activist in a notable movement. He does get two passing mentions in the first two references, but he's not mentioned in any of the rest given, and I can't find significant coverage of him online in WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources in English or Arabic (using the Arabic spelling given) to indicate notability per WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletea as not notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 11:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Pomi[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, albeit on a weaker level per sources I was able to access online. ^[1], ^[2], ^[3]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Gobierno argentino distinguió a embajador Guillermo Pomi". 28 April 2015. (in Spanish)
^ "Guillermo Pomi: "La Argentina decidió avanzar en decisiones unilaterales"". 20 July 2014. (in Spanish)
^ "El Senado aprobó la venia del embajador Pomi en Argentina" (in Spanish)

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. The issues were easily fixable and while the article does need more non-primary sources, sources like this (AuDB) and mention this (Cambridge University Press) establishes that it's quite influential and is still in use today. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Antarctica[edit]

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

Incompehensible Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:03, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment – It says right in the article, "Plants collected by Hooker from Auckland and Campbell Islands are listed below". Seems rather easy to comprehend. Additional discussion is occurring on the article's talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I suspect that this was the first work on the subject. It will thus be a significant work in the history of botany. On the other hand, by providing long lists of species, it is horribly unreadable. Nevertheless, I can see the possibilities of an acceptable category, "flora first described in Flora Antartica". The number of red-links suggests that there is much work to be done! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was a famous and pioneering expedition, and its record of the botany of the Antarctic is unquestionably notable. Whether the article ought to contain lists is a separate matter: they might be subsidiary articles. The Flora is as you'd expect mentioned in botany texts; Charles Darwin thanked J. D. Hooker for an early copy and wanted to discuss its evolutionary implications ... this is such an obvious keep I'm bemused by its nomination really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. A book on one of the first scientific expeditions to Antarctica, written by one of the greatest biologists ever. I don't understand why this is nominated at all. If Dwergenpaartje is upset about the clearly inappropriate tag placed by a new page patroller they could just have removed it.--Lemnaminor (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite comprehensible article. I think this was AfD'd in a fit of pique by the author. Perhaps because some editor who couldn't read English tagged it as "incomprehensible." First Light (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're now ready to SNOW KEEP this article, if anyone would like to close it for us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comprehensible. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 27 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 Owl City. Courcelles (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Young[edit]

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

Advertorially toned and almost entirely primary sourced WP:BLP of a musician whose one-man-band pseudonym already has an article. Literally nothing here suggests or reliably sources any conceivable reason why we could possibly need two separate articles about him-as-Owl-City and him-as-himself (especially given that him-as-himself is still mostly about him-as-Owl-City.) Redirect to Owl City. Bearcat (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBAND. The subject is interdependently notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing in this article is entirely to primary sources, blogs and social media content. But NMUSIC is not passed by asserting that it's passed — it's passed by reliably sourcing that it's passed, and there's no reliable sourcing about him as a topic in his own right independently of the band: any RS coverage that exists about him is covering "him as Owl City", not "him as a separate topic in his own right independently of Owl City". And NMUSIC explicitly states that a musician gets a redirect to his band, not a standalone BLP as a separate topic from his band, if the sourcing for him as a separate topic is band-dependent. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Owl City. Certainly needs a lot of work to see what can be reliably sourced and then whether a separate article is justified, but I don't see a case for deletion/redirect without merge. --Michig (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this recommendation. For instance, consider the press coverage of his recent film score endeavor here and here. While I remain skeptical that we'll find enough information to let this article stand on its own merit in terms of reliable sources, I think it would be best merged into Owl City as opposed to a simple delete and redirect. Wizoomer95 (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After pulling information from this article for his other band Swimming With Dolphins (band)‎, I agree that this article needs a cleanup. There's too much unreliable information, most of which is duplicated on the Owl City article anyway. (Maybe moving all of the Owl City information to its' article would be a good start.) If someone can condense it down to information from verifiable sources that focus more on Adam's personal life, film score, or other projects, I believe it should stay. Otherwise I guess a redirect to Owl City will have to do. --KiRaShi 22:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Owl City as he's imaginably going to get mentions but all of this is still questionable for a solidly independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Owl City at least; but preferably, keep and improve – For the record, a merge to Owl City was proposed back in 2012, which I was indecisive about (and still am). Reviewing the state of source coverage, I'm inclined to agree that the majority of coverage discusses Young only in relation to Owl City. WP:MUSICBIO states that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Adam Young has done independent musical work outside of Owl City. Here are a few sources (they do mention Owl City and some make comparisons to it, but the overall main focus of each source is on the non-Owl City project):
- Sky Sailing: Star Tribune, Billboard, Idolator, MTV, Cambio, Manilla Bulletin (HighBeam), The Virginian-Pilot (HighBeam)
- Adam Young Scores: San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Cross Rhythms – Owl City is on hiatus at the moment to make way for this project, so it's likely we'll see additional coverage about it in the near future
- Swimming with Dolphins: Jesusfreakhideout.com mentions Young in passing as a former member

It's questionable whether these projects give credence to Young's standalone notability, but they do make me opposed to redirecting without merging. They're notable enough to deserve a mention somewhere Wikipedia, be it in the Owl City article, perhaps in a new "Side projects" section, or in an Adam Young article. A great deal of the current Adam Young article is based solely upon primary sources—a lot of the PureVolume pages don't adequately verify that the composer is Adam Young. These should probably be cut. Verifiable biographical information about Young's personal life should be merged too. Mz7 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 11:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breanne Düren[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, relying almost entirely on primary sources, blogs and Twitter for sourcing -- out of the 16 sources in the article, literally the only remotely reliable ones are a 99-word blurb in a magazine and an article in Billboard which glancingly namechecks her existence in the process of failing to be about her. This is not how a musician gets a Wikipedia article -- WP:NMUSIC is not passed by asserting that it's passed, but by reliably sourcing that it's passed, and no RS coverage means no article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.It's the existence of reliable sources that matters when we are judging notability, not how well the article is sourced, and you show no evidence in your nomination that you looked beyond what is currently in the article. A quick Google found pieces from American Songwriter, StarTribune.com, and Seventeen. --Michig (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Here's another. --Michig (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm agreeing with Michig. Plus an informal test I have is readership and Breanne's page is getting 80 pageviews per day; while readership is not an official guideline at Wikipedia, my experience from many AfD discussions is that rarely do pages with such attention get deleted. Therefore, it is not worth my searching further.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy as my searches found only a few passing mentions at News Books, nothing outstandingly convincing. Although viewers may be searching this article, there are no currently convincing signs of better improvements yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You think this should be moved to draft space and user space at the same time? How would that work? Why do there need to be signs of improvement? What has that got to do with notability? Did you look at the coverage I linked above? --Michig (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles do not need to be constantly improved to qualify topic notability. See also: WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit – Meets WP:BASIC per the sources provided above by Michig. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 11:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming With Dolphins (band)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a band whose strongest claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC is the fact that it was started by a musician who attained notability with a different band he started after leaving this one. The sourcing here is abysmal, to boot -- of the 33 sources here, every last man jack one of them is to blogs, Facebook, Tumblr, Soundcloud, Indiegogo, YouTube, iTunes or Amazon.com, with not even one single solitary shred of reliable source coverage in the entire pile. This is not how a band gets a Wikipedia article -- even if they technically met every criteria in NMUSIC, the article would still have to be reliably sourced to actually get them over NMUSIC. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not poorly sourced, but it does have a lot of WP:PRIMARY sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is poorly sourced, because there isn't even one properly reliable source anywhere in the entire article — it's based completely on primary sources and blogs. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quality of sourcing is not relevant re. notability. Enough coverage exists in reliable sources, e.g. [16], [17], [18]. --Michig (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those three links are blogs which don't count as reliable sources, and while an album review in a real music magazine (which only Alternative Press is) counts as valid sourcing, it can't carry WP:GNG by itself as an article's only valid sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither jesusfreakhideout nor crossrhythms are blogs. I've seen them accepted as reliable sources elsewhere although I'm not overly familiar with them myself as I have little interest in this type of music. --Michig (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC) There's also a review at Allmusic. --Michig (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as although the article would still need work, this may be convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 1 March 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oceans Aquarium Research & Science Center[edit]

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

The article references a project proposal from 2012. I can find no evidence that it was carried out. The original source was a primary source, and the website that contained it is now gone. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In 2010 Victor Moffitt ran unsuccessfully for governor of RI. This idea of a giant aquarium was his platform. A couple years later he said he was going to do it anyway. Looks like he registered a non-profit, but I can find nothing whatsoever in terms of sources since then. Even if there were more sources, all we have is "guy said he wanted to build an aquarium in Rhode Island". If it gets off the ground, it'll probably be notable at some point, but most definitely is not now. Here are the sources I do see, all of which are brief mentions or very local sources: Patch, Washington Examiner, WPRI, GCPVD, RIPR, Golocal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 25 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phuket pearl farm[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Promotional piece on a non-notable pearl farm in Thailand. Searches for sources reveal very few other than marketing pieces for farmed pearls and tourist visits, and none reliable. There is apparently no significant coverage about this place, even in the unreliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 29 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caue Barcelos[edit]

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

I can find no sources that discuss him in any detail. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Although there are some refs there, this person is not notable enough to have their own page. Class455fan1 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better and none of this currently satisfies the music notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 1 March 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 Maithripala Sirisena. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari[edit]

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

Just because she is the spouse of the President of Sri Lanka does not necessarily mean that she is notable - see WP:INVALIDBIO. As relationships do not confer notability. There does not appear to be any supporting/referenced sources that establish notability in her own right. Dan arndt (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at best Redirect because I believe I have seen others such as DGG note that some articles can be considered notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the comment above means that I've said that articles like this one on spouses of heads of state, have often been considered notable here; I think they almost always have, & it's good to be consistent. (Articles on of spouses of heads of government have usually not been kept on hat reason alone, although I think they ought to be, ) In general I think enough information could be found in local sources--Sri Lanka topics have been very hard to deal with here, so the basic principle is avoiding cultural bias. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 10. Sandstein 12:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A detailed search has not provided any additional information on the subject apart from that she exists and is the wife of the president and therefore fails WP:GNG. At best this should be a Redirect until such time that additional information can be provided. Dan arndt (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think she's likely "inherently notable" per our policies (WP:inherit makes such a claim at least), but in English at least I can't find anything of any significance. There may well be things out there, and I think the bar would be pretty low for those sources. But until there is significant coverage of her, I'd say we should have a Redirect to her husband--more as an editorial thing than anything. If there is even one solid interview/overview of _her_ out there, I'd go with keep. Certainly opposed to deletion as a reasonable search term AND the fact I can't imagine we won't have an article here at some point soon. Hobit (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the DRV - all the sources we've been able to find treat her as a one- or two-sentence mention in articles about her husband, so we should do the same, and there's already more information in Maithripala Sirisena#Family and personal life than there is in this article. It doesn't make sense to turn this into a redlink, so redirect there until the sourcing situation changes. —Cryptic 04:52, 26 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 of the debate was Snowball keep. Mostly thanks to Cirt's efforts at article expansion, it is now clear that the article meets WP:GNG. -Pete (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost (Wikipedia)[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability per WP:GNG Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and trout Guy Macon. Guy Macon very recently falsely accused of a COI. This AFD nomination seems to be retaliation for my editing at another article. The article was recently started and editors are working on it. If Guy Macon wants to withdraw his nomination then that is fine if he does not AFD it again. Blanking it after it started won't work for me. See WP:WDAFD if you want to officially withdraw the AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Filing AfDs by hand. Never again. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:QuackGuru, you reposted the AfD notice[19] that that your actions messed up,[20][21] so now you can fix it. Have fun. If you ever delete an AfD notice before the person who posted it saves the discussion page again, (you only gave me 2 minutes!) I will take you to AfD for being deliberately disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to withdraw the AFD or not? Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't post it. You did.[22] You are responsible for anything that you post to Wikipedia. I wanted to blank it as being badly malformed and start over, but you insist on interfering, so it is now on you to fix the malformed RfC that you posted. Now get to it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What in God's name is this stupid, juvenile slapfight? Seriously? Is this seriously, actually a "He started it! No he started it!" argument on Wikipeida? Guy Macon, please, take a quick walk on this one, and then decide if you would formally like to withdraw this, or not. Quack, it may be a good idea to consider avoiding discussions where issues like this may arise, though it really is up to you on that one. In any case, ~~Guy Macon~~ both of you needs a hefty trouting. Now, can we get back to the discussion about this article? Thanks. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guy Macon, you said "You are responsible for anything that you post to Wikipedia." Very well then. If Guy Macon says I am responsible for the AFD then I officially withdraw the AFD. Any editor can close the debate and speedy keep it. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't have suitable notability, belongs in Wikipedia: namespace. Aeonx (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Aeonx, I and others added more sources. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Allthefoxes said "Guy Macon needs a hefty trouting." User:Guy Macon trouted Allthefoxes, but is not telling the whole story. This AFD was not done with the best of intentions and should result in closing the AFD immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly attacking the editor who filed the AfD is not going to save the article you created. Please stick to the question at hand. Do you have any evidence of notability? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources in the article that indicate it is notable. It was recently expanded. You should not follow my contributions and then AFD this article without the best of intentions. Do you also want to trout me for your behavior issues? QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on whether the page should be deleted, not on other editors. We have all read the "several sources in the article". I don't see any real evidence of notability there. Do you intend on creating articles for all of the hundreds of things mentioned in How Wikipedia Works or Wikipedia: The Missing Manual? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have zero idea what might be going on between Guy Macon and QuackGuru, but simply evaluating the AFD on its own, this is navel gazing with very very weak notability. Maybe a brief mention in Wikipedia but as a standalone article, no. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Masem, I and others added more sources. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The content was moved to English Wikipedia. This AFD discussion is moot and irrelevant. QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - No real evidence of actual notability. All sources seem to be nothing but passing mentions. WP:GNG. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
- User:Allthefoxes, I and others added more sources. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will strike my vote. I'm still not super happy with the refs. Few seem to actually be about the publication itself, just passing mentions. However, I can't comment on the books, and the raw amount of mentions might be enough here. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 01:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Allthefoxes, for your kind words about our Quality improvement efforts to the article. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions and improvements. Anyone can talk about an article, but few can really make a difference like editors like you. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 01:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wikipedia community. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Northamerica1000, the content was merged to English Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Northamerica1000, I and others added more sources. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Signpost has had some scoops. And it is not navel-gazing, IMO, it is simply sensible for Wikipedia to be the place to go to find out basic facts about The Signpost as a media outlet, rather than some other website. I don't know if a Wikipedia-focused website or two might have a review of The Signpost or not, but it would a shame IMO for Wikipedia not to be the go-to source about it. To avoid appearance of navel-gazing, the article should be kept short and extremely factual and err on the side of being humble. For example, perhaps mentioning Snow as a founder seems okay since he became chair of board later, while naming a person who is not otherwise clearly notable could come across as vanity. --do ncr am 04:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good argument. If you edit the page to be as described, removing WP:COATRACKing such as the bit that starts with "Writing about the current crisis at the Wikimedia Foundation..." I will be very much inclided to change mt !vote to "keep". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC) 06:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC) [fixed account, this was obviously a volunteer edit][reply]

In the present form, I say Keep, but with a concern that the soapboxing may be added back later. Certain individuals really, really want an article in mainspace containing their POV about recent events concerning Wikipedia management, and I doubt that anything less thatn a topic ban will stop that effort. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I just edited it down slightly more (though better wording welcomed). I note it has no usage of word "volunteer"; it is instead "managed by the Wikipedia community" as if it just emerges automatically. Some reference to the volunteer editors should be given! Perhaps something like "The number of regular writers and editors--all volunteers--has varied from one to five [if those are the correct numbers], during 200x to 2016." A factual statement like that is verifiable by review of all past issues, and does not need to be supported by a published source. --do ncr am 22:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not commenting on the GNG rationale at this time because there are 4 books to check and other sources.

The Signpost is cited as a reliable source by other publications. At Wikipedia:Notability_(periodicals)#Criteria there are criteria saying, "The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works". The "passing mentions" which are said to not count for GNG would be supporting evidence that The Signpost is cited for its content. Since The Signpost is cited by reliable sources, then it meets inclusion criteria as a widely cited publication in its field. Does anyone dispute this publication's authority for reporting Wikipedia issues, or that it is cited? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this feels very WP:POINTy. Blythwood (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with somewhat of a COI as a former editor there. Had this been two months ago, I would have !voted to delete, but the recent media coverage puts it over the hump IMHO. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good deal of coverage, over a nice period of a stretch of time, in multiple different types of sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've done quite a bit of research as part of a recent Quality improvement effort on this article. Please compare previous version with — version of the article after my research and Quality improvement effort. (diff) Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The numerous third-party reliables sources, many recently added, take this well beyond navel-gazing. Like it or not (which would be navel-gazing), reliable sources are now gazing at us. First Light (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability established by studies and third-party sourcing. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:13, 1 March 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. Several of the early deletion opinions did not take into account the expansion of the article by Megalibrarygirl, and thus consensus seems to support keeping the article. That said, if any uninvolved editor thinks this close is inappropriate, feel free to revert. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 10:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carri Leigh Goodwin[edit]

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

As sad as this is, I don't believe this person is notable and feels like a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VICTIM Gbawden (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a number of hits on Google for her, however none of these appear to be in reliable sources. The results I am finding are blogs or Reddit. What happened to her COULD be seen as notable....if it was appropriately covered in reliable sources. Delete for now, but if she was covered later on I wouldn't be opposed to re-adding her. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This stub is part of a project for a class, Women in Warfare, which includes studying gender in the military. The stub is meant to be an encyclopedic profile of a U.S. military personnel, and the "news" aspect of it is only the truth. Although perhaps not significant in previous literature or encyclopedic knowledge, Goodwin is included as military personnel for her duty, and we would like to bring her to light. Furthermore, it would be remiss to build her profile without including the story of what happened to her, as it gives further significance to the topic of her death. We would like the chance to continue working on this article. Hannahelong (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good project you are working on, however please bear in mind that subjects on Wikipedia are required to meet certain aspects such as notability. In this case there just isn't any reliable sources to verify this. While yes she did serve in the military, and the events that occurred to her are tragic, it doesn't necessarily equal the creation of a Wikipedia page for her. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect.~~Delete~~ even though Goodwin's tragic life is recounted in a book, "Silenced No More": The Courage of a Soldier - Life After Military Sexual Trauma, the book is published by a vanity press Author House. a news search [23] turned up little, and a news archive search on Proquest turned up nothing on "Carri Leigh Goodwin" Topic simply lacks RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to be an university assignment per Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Miami/Women In Warfare (Spring 2016). Also several other articles started within the same assignment have the same problems. Beagel (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice. Related Afd is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Plank. Beagel Beagel (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not news. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of you are correct: this is "not news." This is a person who passes GNG. Not only is she written about in multiple sources, her case is reported on over time and in other languages and news sites around the world. I provided the sources and expanded the article somewhat. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current sourcing clearly passes GNG 1bandsaw (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following upgrade by Megalibrarygirl. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources, including CNN, and The New York Times, have been added to the article; and the subject is still discussed, I think WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Megalibrarygirl - Clearly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of reliable sourcing. passes GNG, for sure.BabbaQ (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
revisiting the NYTimes reference is in the paper's online photojournalism blog, "Lens" and is a mention in a short list of military rapers. CNN article has 3 paragraphs. The Business Insider source does not mention Goodwin or the other rape victims in the film by name. It references a Salon story on which the film is based, but I cannot find Goodwin at Salon.com. I do not doubt the horror or rape in the military, or of what happened ot Goodwin. Frankly, writing this makes me feel like I'm supporting rape, but, It's just that the sources do not seem to be there to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doublechecking myself, a news search [24] leaving out her middle name turns up little; much of what it does turn up are false leads, including pages where Goodwin is mentioned in the online comments section, not in the actual article. Unless somebody can bring sources.... sometimes they exist, even though they fail to show up on searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Invisible War, which seems to be the reason her name pops up in many articles about sexual assault in the military. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote (above), to redirect and merge into a brief paragraph in synopsis section of The Invisible War. thanks, User:OpenFuture. User:Megalibrarygirl, would you be good with that? E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory and OpenFuture: My preference is for her to have her own article. I think the fact that she's covered around the world is pretty important. I know she's not the full subject of the articles she's written up in, but she's pretty important in those articles. That said, if the consensus is to have her redirected and the information about her is included in The Invisible War, I'd rather that happen than her article be deleted. So I'm good with that if my opinion is in the minority. Thanks everyone who is working to come up with valid solutions on this topic. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do continue to think that a redirect is best, because the sourcing is weak, except for the sources related directly to the movie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in CNN, Proceso and a noted documentary film (The Invisible War). Why many of the sources about the subject are in other languages is beyond me though.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:36, 25 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) 08:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPlum[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No claim of notability, 2 app reviews and mentioned in only one article -Liance^{talk/contribs} 02:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references apart from tech.co, a source which does not appear to meet WP:RS standards as it has no clear editorial policy and accepts paid/sponsored posts. App store inclusion does not confer notability. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as newly founded with unlikely enough solid in-depth third-party coverage sources for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Brien (AAA politician)[edit]

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

Non notable local politician. CivisHibernius (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. The question is whether the Dublin City Council of 63 members is sufficiently important that it meets the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:Politician and fails WP:GNG. Irish county and city councillors of which there are almost 1,000, do not meet notability guidelines for politicians. Being an anti water charges protester is not notable, as he not not a leader of this campaign. Spleodrach (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't see how being one of 63 council members in a city with a pop. of ~500,000 can make each of them notable for that status (even if it is Dublin). Nor do I see any profiles or articles that are about him, or that deal with his career in a substantive way. And although one of the sourced may call hi a leading light, his fame does not burn bright enough to get him a mention on the page Anti-Austerity Alliance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leutrim Berisha[edit]

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

This article seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It appears that WP:1E is applicable here. Notified the author already on their talk page, even offered to Draftify it for them, and gave some time to resolve. Unfortunately, the references being added are only rehashes or copies of same event. While this individual may be clever and impressive, I don't think he is ready for a Wikipedia article yet. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG: Scant sourcing, and the subject's vulnerability reports, while something that cannot be done by any layperson, likely would not towards possible notability. Esquivalience ^t 02:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:ANYBIO. I could find no secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject (or Google) to assert that this person meets either criterion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Racial equality (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The two non-primary topics on this page are partial title matches with no indication that they are known by the phrase "Racial Equality". Ibadibam (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from page creator This was a long time ago, but I apparently created this because Racial equality was a disambiguation page at the time, but when I was going through fixing links to disambiguation pages, it became clear that an actual page was appropriate at Racial equality, so I moved all the disambiguation stuff here. I've no real opinion on keeping this as a dab page or not, so I'll defer to people who know more about disambiguation than I do. I'll attempt to be marginally useful and notify them by doing a deletion sorting for this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not because I feel like sticking it to Floq and seeing one of his articles get deleted (heaven forbid!) but because it looks like a vestigial remnant of some disambiguation links that can now be safely covered in the main Racial equality page. It's a borderline WP:CSD#G6 and only fails to meet the letter of that law by having two links on it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Racial equality" is not ambiguous; neither of those organizations are known simply as "racial equality." -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I feel like sticking it to Floq, and also because it's not needed. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 2 March 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. postdlf (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of English-language euphemisms for profanities[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of English-language euphemisms for profanities

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

WP:NOTDICT, this kind of list belongs on wiktionary Prisencolin (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If we had enough stand-alone articles dedicated to terms on the list, it might make a little bit of sense, but although it claims "notable" as part of the inclusion criteria, it sees that's either based on WP:OR or based on some Wiktionary sense of notability (which certainly is not the same as here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced, and so by definition original research. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm4157163/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

[2] ttp://www.hoy.com.py/espectaculos/paraguaya-finaliza-pelicula-pecado-original-en-california

[3] ttp://www.lanacion.com.py/2015/10/22/pecado-original-una-nueva-pelicula-con-sello-paraguayo/

[4] ttp://www.noticine.com/iberoamerica/36-iberoamerica/23681-qpecado-originalq-nuevo-proyecto-paraguayo-coescrito-y-protagonizado-en-eeuu-por-maia-nikiphoroff.html

[5] ttp://www.ultimahora.com/nueva-comedia-negra-paraguaya-llegara-los-cines-2016-n941051.html

[6] ttp://losangeles.bitter-lemons.com/2013/10/28/titus-andronicus-a-vaudeville/#sthash.VEqDOS3D.dpbs

[7] ttp://heyevent.com/event/wtohthouaobdqa/angels-in-america

[8] ttp://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/928968

[9] ttps://icono2015.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/alejandro-torres-menchaca/

[10] ttp://lamoscafilms.tumblr.com

[11] "Gobierno argentino distinguió a embajador Guillermo Pomi". 28 April 2015. (in Spanish)

[12] "Guillermo Pomi: "La Argentina decidió avanzar en decisiones unilaterales"". 20 July 2014. (in Spanish)

[13] "El Senado aprobó la venia del embajador Pomi en Argentina" (in Spanish)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]