Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 February	29 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elephante[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG or NMUSIC John from Idegon (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for items listed above. Provided references are blogs and press releases. No additional references for a useful bio to be found. Scr★pIron^IV 15:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity page about someone who fails all measures of WP:N. Toddst1 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page, not notable, no independent reliable sources. Preaky (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, nothing convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NMUSIC. No reliable sources to prove notability or provide enough information to establish a better biography. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 05:06, 6 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 deleted as unambiguous advertising. ... discospinster _talk 01:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hanan Qureshi[edit]

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

Perhaps there's coverage in Urdu, but I find no independent coverage of a "Hanan Qureshi", so he appears to fail the notability guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:27, 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. If the creator, who has been inactive since 2011, wants it back, we can still talk about a re-userfication. Sandstein 14:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiki[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainer found in user draft space. Users claim GNG can not be tested at MfD so bringing here for discussion. I find he fails GNG but others might disagree. Legacypac (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This probably could have been deleted as a stale draft in userspace, since the creator hasn't made any other edits since creating this in 2011. clpo13_(talk) 23:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too but experience says otherwise [1] Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki, where it was located before Legacypac moved it to mainspace and promptly nominated it for AfD. Moving a draft to mainspace should reflect the mover's belief that the draft is ready for mainspace. Moving a draft to mainspace should not be done in order to accomplish deletion at AfD because the mover believes a deletion discussion at MfD would fail - such an action is a bad-faith move in order to execute an end run around the proper deletion process. Yet this was explicitly Legacypac's motive in his move summary: "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying". See a previous discussion of moving drafts to mainspace when one does not believe they meet GNG here. Also, as it turns out, the claims that GNG does not apply in userspace are correct. A2soup (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are misleading - the linked discussion was about a move during an MfD, which does not apply here as there was no MfD. We can indeed test the notability here. If it passes, great, if not, delete it. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it does not meet notability guidelines, the appropriate action is userfy it back to where it was. The suitability of userspace drafts is tested at MfD, not AfD. Moving a userspace draft to mainspace and then immediately AfDing it is 1) a bad-faith move, 2) a bureaucratic end-run around MfD, and 3) defeats the purpose of userspace drafts. How would you feel if you were on a long wikibreak and someone did this to your draft? Also, don't strike my ANI link - the discussion there is relevant as it contains discussion of whether you thought the page would pass GNG when you moved it, which you did not believe when you made this move. A2soup (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After all this time, amd after they released the contribution under GNU, that is not relevent. What is relevent is - does this meet GNG - which you appear to say no. Sending it back to stale draft land under a nonactive acct accomplishes nothing. Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I would not oppose deleting this draft for promotional concerns at MfD. My !vote here reflects an opposition to the practice of moving pages that one does not believe to meet mainspace standards from userspace to mainspace in order to accomplish deletion via AfD rather than MfD. A2soup (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches also found nothing better and there's simply nothing convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 4 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KPOGCL[edit]

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

This article is not supported by independent reliable sources. See decline of Draft:KPOGCL, which is almost identical to this article, although with more references. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pakistani dailies and news agencies, such as The Nation, Pakistan Press International, Business Recorder, DAWN, The Express Tribune and The Frontier Post, currently used as sources for this article, are independent reliable sources. There is enough sources and coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Beagel (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject and has multiple independent reliable sources. I see no reason for considering deletion.Nicky mathew (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established without copyvio at this attempt. Bazj (talk) 23:01, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inha Univesity Station[edit]

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

The name has misspelled "Univesity" instead of "University" but another very similar article already exists with the correct spelling. Jodosma (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even a re-direct. We have Inha University Station. "Univesity" isn't a common alternate name of "University", just a misspelling.--Oakshade (talk) 07:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nordic Dragon 10:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one cannot even be a plausible redirect to Inha University Station. Or Speedy delete per WP:A10. Vipinhari || talk 18:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible name, I've never seen "University" spelled without the r and I hope I never do again!, IMHO this didn't even need a discussion either but anywho delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:54, 6 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psi Intelligent Control[edit]

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

Article about a WP:FRINGE subject that fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 20:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as gibberish, OR and failing notability standards. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable. When I searched for it the one study was all I found. Perhaps this is just using some odd language and the phenomenon has a more normal name and already exists as an article so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've also had trouble finding significant coverage under this name. It's possible that this is a thing, but it would need to demonstrate better notability before it came back. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources mention this and reads like promotion. Also Farbod the author of the paper on the article is the creator of the Wikipedia article (using the same name). I think he is using Wikipedia to promote his papers, he has created other articles as well doing this. JuliaHunter (talk) 04:54, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Italy[edit]

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

Totally unsourced stub article about beauty pageant. Multiple articles about other "Miss Grand International" national level events have previously been deleted as not being notable, and this one seems even less notable than the others. Thomas.W ^talk 20:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that they really participated. The Banner talk 23:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:INDEPTH / WP:GNG. Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 6 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 speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin all stars marching band[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a marching band, written very much like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. As always, organizations like this do not gain an automatic entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because they exist -- while a properly sourced article about them would probably be includable per WP:GNG, nothing here entitles them to an exemption from having to be properly sourced. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I were able to find some articles about the band but I noticed the text of this article is just straight from here: http://homepage.eircom.net/~dublinallstars/History.htm --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babis Lazaridis[edit]

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

WIkipedia is WP:NOTNEWS reddogsix (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Depending on the reliability of the Greek sources involved and whether this murder had a widespread profile, this could meet WP:NCRIME and be more appropriate as a non-bio article e.g. move to Murder of Babis Lazaridis. Dl2000 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best unless better convincing coverage can be found as it seems this is another case of one-event attention thus questionable for better improvements regarding notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per WP:VICTIM. just another unfortunate murder victim. LibStar (talk) 13:35, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Edge Metal[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about one musician's own self-invented neologism for his own musical "genre", with no properly sourced indication of the term having ever been used by anybody else. Every genre term that an individual artist invents to communicate how unique their own music is does not automatically get a Wikipedia article; a genre term has to be properly sourceable as having real-world currency in critical analysis of music. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are only a few dozen Google hits for this, and none of them are reliable. It seems to have been made up by a band and never caught on. Given the brackets sprinkled throughout the article, it looks like this may have been copy-pasted from somewhere. I can't imagine what sources it cited, though, as there's nothing but social media out there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced article ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:42, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Adkison[edit]

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

American college baseball player who fails WP:NCOLLATH and, more importantly, WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search only reveals your standard MaxPreps et. al player profiles, not third party, substantive articles on the subject. All of the links used as references on the article are essentially game recaps in which Adkison is somewhat mentioned as having played a statistical role in the high school team victories, they are not in-depth coverage about him specifically. Also, this article was created by User:Ty18Adkison, either the subject himself or someone very close to him (WP:COI). Maybe Tyler will be notable one day...just not this day. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had previously attempted to get this speedy deleted under WP:G11 but it was declined. This page is non-notable and overtly promotional.--Mr. Guye (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:28, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milli Deste[edit]

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

A newly formed supporter's club, the article was created by one of the founders (link). No pages in the article name space link to this article. The subject matter appear to have no relevant Google hits except this article. In breach of WP:NN, WP:SPIP and WP:COI.] Thuresson (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear administrators,

This fan club will be announced on 1st of March and we will have many hits in Google. Please give us 3-4 days, and I will include all related hits/web-sites about this fan club under the citation paragraph. There is my interview to the local TV channel about this fan club.

Thank you for your consideration.

P.S: I am new to Wiki, so I tried to add this paragraph to this discussion, but undid my own article by mistake.--Shamil55 (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As of now for no significant coverage and/or notability. Sounds like a case of WP:TOOSOON. We'll see if the subject is covered in 3-4 days. The AfD will still be open and at that point I'll revisit. Meatsgains (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are far too many issues with this article. The club hasn't even been officially created, and even when it has, it will still be far from meeting general notability. Add the self-promotion and conflict of interest concerns. I suggest to Shamil55 that they read all the relevant policies and guidelines before resubmitting this article. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I will also advise Shamil55 on their talk page that AfD templates cannot be removed until the discussion is closed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrators,

As I mentioned above, I removed the notice by mistake. Thanks for restoring it back. In 3-4 days, I will include all relevant coverage of our supporter group in different media sites. I agree with your point about self-promotion, however a lot of people are already aware of this group and after the opening of it on 1st of March, it will become more of an information page, rather than self-promotion.

If conflict of interest is related to my name, I can exclude that sentence without any problem. Thanks for pointing it out. --Shamil55 (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I have opened a case about my logo. But no one has replied yet. I wonder why the logo was removed from the web-site. You can check the removal in the history of the page. --Shamil55 (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shamil55 That particular file was removed from Wikimedia Commons (which is a separate project from English Wikipedia) due to copyright issues, and is completely separate from the current discussion. You can read more about proper licensing on Commons at c:Commons:Licensing, and that project would be the proper venue to discuss the file. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jkudlick. I do understand that it does not belong here, I just asked. Why are you all so aggressive? :) Thanks, GiantSnowman :) We know that there is no evidence of notability. I asked for 3-4 days to bring the evidence. --Shamil55 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shamil55: I did not intend to be aggressive, so I apologize if I seem that way. I merely intended to point you in the correct directions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick, no worries. I probably misunderstood it. I e-mailed permission-commons(at)wikipedia.org about license and verification of logo. Anyways, going back to the article. I will post here all new info in 3-4 days. If it still violates any Wikipedia regulations, then you can delete it. Thank you very much for the constructive discussion. --Shamil55 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fan club only launches tomorrow. I simply don't see how this could satisfy GNG at the moment, nor in the short term when any coverage is likely to be repeated comments along the lines of "new fan club launched" with little that could be used to generate encyclopedic comment. Could be notable in the future, but not now. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Delete - Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Can be recreated in future when subject becomes notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the team- WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:17, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Crowfoot[edit]

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

Basically a hyperbolic resume. Only references that mention him are a directory page and an article that mentions him as a potential co-owner of a hockey team that appears to have never happened. Richfife (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)perrychahal17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)~ well you are correct he didnt own a hockey team it was Basketball, you could pull the teams records etc, furthermore he is an iconic person for our first nations people, there is a highway named after his family, he is the 2nd dentist of aborignal decent in canada thats pretty big, you could help make the page better instead of knocking it17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perrychahal (talk • contribs)

Delete. I found a few hits ([2], [3], [4]), but they're not really coverage of Dr. Crowfoot himself. We would need articles in reliable sources, such as newspapers, that demonstrate his importance through coverage of him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I echo what's been said here, none of this suggests independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His ancestor was notable, but he is not - based on Wikipedia's criterion of needing significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The article contains four references. Two of them are reliable sources but are about Chief Crowfoot and don't mention this subject at all. The third appears to be his own webpage. The fourth mentions him in passing in an article about Edmonton sports. I'm sure he is a good dentist and a good citizen, but this international encyclopedia requires significant coverage and he hasn't gotten it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 7 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 merge to Pretenders (Transformers). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Groundbreaker[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first thought I had was to Merge him somewhere but he's not even mentioned at List of The Transformers characters? How minor of a character is this? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Probably the only viable option then... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of The Transformers characters is an article about characters that appeared in one particular TV series, which ran from 1984 to 1988. Groundbreaker created in 1989, so OBVIOUSLY he can't time travel back and appear in that TV show that doesn't exist any more. He was a Marvel Comics character, as they ran the Transformers license in comic book form at the time. Perhaps if you know very little about the topic, you should refrain from voting on deletion proposals and proposing mergers that don't make sense?Mathewignash (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't state anything about any TV series? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article's name could have the (TV series) added to it in style of the main article: The Transformers (TV series). In addition I noticed the main article doesn't have a link to the character list? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the issue by renaming the article as List of The Transformers (TV series) characters after the main article and also adding a lead which specifies it's about the TV series. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Page should be merged with List of The Transformers characters. Meatsgains (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. He wasn't in The Transformers TV series.Mathewignash (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Pretenders (Transformers), where he is mentioned. Mathewignash (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge general bio details to Pretenders (Transformers). The other characters on that list could probably be merged as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:16, 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 merge to Mini-Con. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deepdive[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similarly to the above AfD, I'd like to point out this character isn't even mentioned at List of The Transformers characters. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Page should be merged with List of The Transformers characters. Meatsgains (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you merge a fictional character made in 2006 to a list about a TV show that ended in 1988? Mathewignash (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, I clarified the issue by renaming the article as List of The Transformers (TV series) characters after the main article and also adding a lead which specifies it's about the TV series. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Mini-Con, where he is mentioned. Mathewignash (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 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 merge to Micromasters. As consensus is with both Merge and Redirect I'm closnig as Merge ...., If there's nothing too merge than I have no objections to it being just a redirect instead. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Master[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similarly to the above AfD, I'd like to point out this character isn't even mentioned at List of The Transformers characters. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would he be mentioned on that page? He wasn't in The Transformers TV series. Mathewignash (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, I clarified the issue by renaming the article as List of The Transformers (TV series) characters after the main article and also adding a lead which specifies it's about the TV series. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Page should be merged with List of The Transformers characters. Meatsgains (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, he wasn't on that show. Mathewignash (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Micromasters, where he is mentioned. Mathewignash (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Micromasters. I would prefer merging, but it would probably require the article to be restructured. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 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 merge to Female Autobots - Merging here does IMHO make more sense. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beta (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Out of all 4 of these listed Transformers characters, this is the only one even mentioned at List of The Transformers characters. However even there only an articless sidenote of a member of "Others". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No, wait, redirect is the better option after all. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, I clarified the issue by renaming the article as List of The Transformers (TV series) characters after the main article and also adding a lead which specifies it's about the TV series. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to the article Female Autobots, which has more information on Beta than the list page suggested above. Mathewignash (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvraj Bhardwaj[edit]

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

16-year-old inventor/CEO. I can't find any non-social-media G-hits. —teb728 t c 12:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had to semiprotect the article due to repeated removal of the AfD template. Lectonar (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources aren't for the person. In addition google provided nothing but LinkedIn and even that's probably only for a different person with the same name. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be notable at some point but not now. One BLP ref is from before he was born, not that the others contain any valid refs. CSD deleted by author twice, AfD tag also removed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough at this time, and per Lorien's rationale above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLPPROD. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 14:48, 4 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) 02:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Adams (singer)[edit]

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

A person competed in a reality talent show finished in 10th place, means there is no significant coverage and fails the guidelines with WP:NMUSIC and WP:BIO. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. left a televised talent show in the first week and was not a guest at Jay Leno. Thuresson (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the first two AfDs are no longer convincing if there's noting for a better independently notable article, could be redirected if needed but this may not be needed if there's nothing solid. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 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.

Ung and Bereg[edit]

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of the largest cities in the Southeastern United States[edit]

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

Page does not satisfy WP:LISTN and its notability was called into question on ORN. Meatsgains (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists almost entirely of uncited information; was apparently created a probable block evader seeking attention. WP:DENY. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Uses a couple of editor's arbitrary inclusion criteria. Fails WP:LISTN.- Mr X 12:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Softlavender 32.218.47.146 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renis Tershana[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. The person mentioned as an entrepreneur is a shareholder in a local bank in Albania, and president of the Albanian Air Sports Association (we don't have an article for that). Other NGO that are listed in the article are difficult to verify since the websites don't mention him. Created by a SPA, falls into WP:SELFPROMOTE. Mondiad (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly self-promotional. 23 editor (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly best deleted and restarted if better, my searches found nothing better and there's nothing convincing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 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. I note that the last two "keep" opinions are not counted: the second-to-last makes reference to a since withdrawn "keep", and the last one makes no policy-based argument. Sandstein 14:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Metro Local routes[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and routes listed like this are not helpful to anyone. TJH2018 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Unsure - it's quite normal for Wikipedia to have coverage of this sort. See Bus routes in London, list of Toronto Transit Commission bus routes, Green Line Coaches, etc. But are these bus routes reasonably stable (over the course of, say, decades), or do they change every year? If they are reasonably constant and unchanging, then this sounds like a reasonable subject for an article. If not, then maybe the better site for this content is the operator website. I'd welcome local input on this. So I withdraw my 'keep' vote. Blythwood (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL. A great many such lists have been deleted including almost all in the United Kingdom.Charles (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as appropriate to Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and transwiki the rest to Wikivoyage. Unnecessary and overly detailed list; fails WP:NOTDIR and appears to fail WP:LISTN, in addition to the arguments made above. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 17:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a reasonable content fork. I rule out a merge because the ensuing article will be too long. Also, if the nominator is citing NOT, we can always migrate this to WikiVoyage. p b p 18:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'm proposing. We should just delete the page entirely, and not include any routes for Metro Local at all. We should also talk about routes on Metro Express (Los Angeles County) and Metro Rapid. The Metro Local page itself should be removed from AfD but have the routes trimmed out. RfC. TJH2018 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a content fork, but trim the details of each route into a table, such as at List of bus routes in Queens or List of bus routes in Hong Kong. We do not need unnecessary detail, but deleting this page won't help readers any more, either. epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charles - ~~I would thoroughly enjoying nuking the shit out of this!,~~ As noted above it fails NOTRAVEL, NOTGUIDE, NOTDIR, GNG ... ~~You aswell say it fails every policy here .....~~, Anyway we're an encyclopedia... not a travel guide and to be fair all of this does become outdated (It happened with so many of the UK ones until they all got nuked) and so anyone wanting up to date info should either buy a timetable and or check the route on the bus companies website ... –Davey2010^Talk 01:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We should ignore the fact that WP:NOTTRAVEL does not apply to this article (this is obviously not a travel guide, as WP:NOTTRAVEL says, Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.) We should take note only of the destinations and roads served, which more than helps readers (in which case they can go to the website for more information). It works with other systems, too. Why are we unnecessary breaking wikilinks and deleting information? This needs cleanup, not deletion. epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not include every "tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc." why should we include every non-notable local bus route. It seems to me that is covered by the "etc". We do not have lists of gas stations, 24 hour pharmacies and such like. These would be just as WP:USEFUL but are not stable encyclopedic content, anymore than lists of bus routes. This article is basically fancruft.Charles (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why Metro Local routes is 1 article and not 100 of them. Not all routes may be notable, but taken as a whole, they are notable. What's more, I think some Metro bus routes (720 comes to mind) actually have enough coverage to pass GNG. Metro busing and gas stations are apples and oranges in that Metro busing has much more reliable sourcing than gas stations do. p b p 14:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you could find as many sources on gas stations as bus routes, planning permissions, licences etc, as for most minor bus routes. That is however beside the point. These are all run-of-the-mill commercial services and there is no reason for Wikipedia to list them.Charles (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be of that opinion, but while gas stations are inherently non-notable, there are thousands of articles on individual bus lines, if not list of bus lines, on Wikipedia. Surely if we delete a list of bus lines, we should also delete list of subway lines since we are not a travel guide. Then we should delete lists of motorways, interstates, highways, roads, etc. The point is that if we delete one article about notable infrastructure that some may find non-notable, by that reasoning we should delete the rest as well. epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subways and roads are permanent infrastructure. Bus routes are not and change all the time. You are making a spurious comparison.Charles (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Charles, you are making a spurious comparison when you say that bus lines are no more notable than gas stations. For starters, most bus routes have more reliable sources than the average gas station. Secondly, gas stations that have a lot of reliable sources, such as those that are NRHP-listed, can be and are kept. You're also ignoring the fact that this is all routes in a single article, not one article per route. Finally, I must remind you that RUNOFTHEMILL isn't in an of itself policy. p b p 19:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the AfD

::::::::I note Purpleback that in this edit you did not give any source for the new information you added, or any edit summary. Is this typical of your editing?Charles (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You all need to back off. This isn't the place for back and forth banter. This is here to discuss whether or not this article needs to be deleted. TJH2018 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesdrakew:: The fact that I didn't leave an edit summary on a relatively small change has zero bearing whatsoever on whether or not this article should be deleted. Please confine your comments to this article, not those who have edited it. p b p 20:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was the lack of a citation that is the main problem. All facts stated on Wikipedia need a source for verifiability.Charles (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's slow down for a second and think about this. To keep this up to date, you would have to have a Wikipedian put hours in to making this list current. You would also have to spend even more time going to Metro.net and linking every single timetable for every bus route. Also, someone would have to go through and update those links every time there is a service change, which for Metro, would be twice a year. I don't think anyone should have to go through all that trouble for something that's always up to date on another website. And about the subways, those are actually notable, and have meaning to readers, versus old bus routes that may not even exist. I agree with epicgenius that we should maybe trim it down to a level with no unnecessary detail, and just list the route, starting point and end point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJH2018 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we should delete anything that changes every six months? We have a lot of deleting to do. p b p 19:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metro can do alot better at updating this then we can ....., And lets be honest we all have better things to do than to sit here twice a year updating this crap, Someone should merge all of this over to Wikia and then all our problems would be solved. –Davey2010^Talk 21:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, if there was an article on a bus system with ten lines changing once every five years, and fifty citations to support that information, we wouldn't have a problem with deleting that list at all. That bus system can be smaller and it can have more reliable sources, but the frequency of the bus routes' changes and the lack of citations on the article does not indicate that deletion is the way to go. We don't need to list all the details, just the destinations and a little notable history. epicgenius (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: IMO, "we'll have to update this article twice a year" is not a particularly valid argument for deletion. There are many other types of articles that have to be updated dozens of times annually yet we would never dream of deleting. p b p 01:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is true but atleast me this is different ...... Any article I've seen that needs updating once or twice a year is an actual article .... this is just one big gigantic list of "stuff" that can be hosted on the bus companies website, Meh we all judge things differently here .... Thank god I'm not the closing admin!

, –Davey2010^Talk 04:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we have reached a consensus. We should trim down the lists on the normal Metro Local article, and delete this one entirely. But, to get history on every line would be impossible. Also, PBP and Charles, you need to stop going at it. You can do it on each other's talk page, just not here. The newbie shouldn't have to be telling you this. TJH2018 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, we have not reached any kind of consensus to delete this article. There are as many people wanting to keep this article as wanting to delete it. I also find it unfortunate that you equate my actions with Charles'. I confine my comments to Charles' position on this article, but he wants to focus on my style of contributions rather than actually give policy based-arguments as to why this article should be deleted. p b p 00:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PBP, I'm on your side as Charles is being extremely inappropriate in this discussion. I was just trying to keep it neutral. His comment about your blocks and editing style are not important. At this point, any further comments from him should be discredited and not included in the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJH2018 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about taking sides. I did not know there have been blocks and did not mention them. The edit I commented on was made to the article under discussion, so has relevance. We are trying to establish the fate of this article based on policies and guidelines.Charles (talk) 09:44, 28 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 // 03:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This kind of content is not useful for Wikipedia. No sources have been provided other than the transit authority's own web site ... which is where travelers should go to find the information found here (and on the transit authority's site, they will find much more detail, including timetables and maps). A bus user would be unwise to rely on this Wikipedia article, which could have been vandalized or become out of date. If someone did decide to rely on this article rather than going to the Metro web site, they could find themselves standing in the sun or the rain for hours, waiting for a bus that was never going to arrive. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blythwood. Class455fan1 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charlesdrakew Jeni ^(talk) 16:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of services without evidence of notability (and currently without any references). There's more context than a simple listing, but suitable third-party sources (not just the operator's own site and any databases that may exist) are needed. Peter James (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I don't think that lists such as this are always unsuitable - lists of television series episodes and characters exist where there is some notability but not enough for a separate article for each item - but evidence is necessary and no sources have been cited. If it is suitable for an article, this and List of former Metro Local routes should be merged, so the potentially misleading "current" can be removed from the title. Peter James (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, for something like this, why would you need third-party sources? TJH2018 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARY. Articles should not rely entirely on primary sources.Charles (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, if you can find a third-party source for a Metro bus line that gives you the times, stops, etc., then I will remove this AfD.TJH2018 (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's also the primary reason why I put this up for an AfD.TJH2018 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC

Delete per Charles and Davey. Nordic Dragon 14:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the simple basis it has potential encyclopedic value. Aeonx (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what way?Charles (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are kept on notability etc ... not "encyclopedic value" which this doesn't have anyway!. –Davey2010^Talk 13:50, 6 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 no consensus. SpinningSpark 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek morphemes used in English[edit]

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

Belongs to wiktionary as a category therein. There are thousands of Greek morphemes in English; the page in unmaintainable and utterly pointless Staszek Lem (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can be maintained. Surely Greek morphemes in English is not growing any more? Not pointless. I found it interesting. Aoziwe (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yu'll be surprised, but it is growing. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Words are growing, yes, but not the morpemes used? (One of the beauties of English, one can grow the language without just making lexical stuff up.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Yes it does not add anything one should be able to find in a dictionary, so delete provided it does appear as a category in Wiktionary. Weak because if it can be made encyclopedic, and I would like to see such, for example a discourse on when these terms first appeared, by whom, where, what in, and at what levels in society, etc. Aoziwe (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See English words of Greek origin for general discourse. And if there is detailed enough info about what when where and why, we can have separate articles even about separate words. Otherwise it's just dicdefs. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not dictionary. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Can probably be handled by Wiktionary categories. The list is potentially unmanageably large and arguably open-ended, despite being relatively small at the moment. LjL (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had previously closed this as delete, which I think was a defensible close given the above debate. But, after this conversation, I've come to the conclusion that my close was incorrect. I wrote on my talk page, there's really not much I can do here, but that's a cop-out. I don't know what policy to cite to support my position, so maybe WP:IAR will have to do. As I've said before, there's too much crap in Wikipedia. The classic examples I bring up are porn stars, third-rate football players, pokemon, and endless drivel about popular culture. It may be properly sourced, and policy-compliant, but that doesn't stop it from being crap. Here we have an article about the historical foundations of the English language. If that's not an encyclopedic subject, then I don't know what is. We should have an article about it. Sure, the list may be so big as to be unmaintainable, but then again, so are the lists of porn stars and pokemon characters. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, fine. But, at least if we're going to have all the crap, let's also have some worthwhile articles about worthwhile topics. Anyway, I've backed out my close, un-deleted the article, and said my peace. Maybe I've been playing wiki-janitor for too long. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valuable reference tool to WP. --Odysses (☏) 20:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Backed out my close, so getting this back where people can find it -- RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is a guideline about stand-alone lists for a reason. Just "ignoring all rules" about a list that cannot really work in the current fashion (but, as mentioned, could be done better on Wiktionary in various smarter ways) won't fix your Pokémon articles. Would you support an indiscriminate "List of English words"? Heck, why not a "List of words"? Well, wait, that exists, but redirects to various topic-specific lists of English words; those, in general, are not as WP:INDISCRIMINATE as this one risks being (though it's quite possible some should be looked at). LjL (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still as above. Make it more encyclopedic. (I do not like plain lists.) @AlecTore: Make it a companion article for English words of Greek origin. Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink Split List of Greek and Latin roots in English into Latin and Greek and merge Greek morphemes with Greek roots. The morphemes article is largely a duplicate of the roots article, but the morphemes article does have actual example words and their meanings. I would still like to provenance too for each use, ie, when these terms first appeared, by whom, where, what in, and at what levels in society, etc. Aoziwe (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems like an example of another article that's already gotten way too long and unwieldy. I really wonder why we have Wiktionary in the first place if this sort of detailed word lists, etymologies and examples are supposed to be kept on Wikipedia instead. LjL (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal to WP:OTHERWIKISEXIST? :-) In one sense, wikipedia is a victim of its own success. I suspect the number of people who know about wikipedia outstrips the number who know about wictionary by several orders of magnitude. Which means (and I'm only being partially facetious) that wictionary is where information goes to die. But, let's look past that for the moment, and assume moving this information to wictionary is the right thing. In that case, what we would want to do is first get the information moved there, and only after that happens, delete the current article. That would at least ensure that the information was preserved. But, deleting the current article before the information has been preserved, just loses it completely. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Presuming we keep list of Greek and Latin roots in English, what argument might there be not to merge this into that article (regardless of whether that list is split)? Specifically, my question is linguistic -- is there a reason they would be incompatible? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:21, 27 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 // 03:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bergs, Alexander, ed. (2012). English Historical Linguistics, Volume 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. p. 1720. ISBN 3110251604. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
  The book notes:
  Most of the loans from Greek that have made their way into English are relatively recent (i.e. post-15th century) learnedisms and technical vocabulary that have generally been coined outside of Greek but draw on Greek morphemes. For instance, many of the so-called inkhorn terms that stirred up usage-related controversy among scholars and language commentators in the 16th and 17th centuries, e.g. Thomas Wilson, who wrote against their use in his 1560 work The Arte of Rhetorique, were classically inspired coinages, e.g. anacephalize 'to recapitulate' (from Ancient Greek [AGrk] ana-'again' + kephal- 'head', thus a Hellenized version of re-capit-ulate, from Latin re- and caput- 'head'). And, in the technical arena, one can cite the word telephone, dating from the first half of the 19th century for various signaling devices (e.g. one that used musical notes), and only later coming to be applied to the electricity-based device invented later in the century, and actually composed in French out of the Greek-derived elements tele- (AGrk tēle- 'far') and phone (AGrk phōnē 'voice, sound'), thus 'sound from afar'. Note also medical terminology, such as cardiomyopathy (AGrk kardia 'heart' + my- 'muscle' + path- 'suffer'), otorhinolaryngologist (AGrk ōt- 'ear' + rhin- 'nose' + laryng- 'larynx, upper part of windpipe' + logo- 'reckoning, discussion' + -ist- 'one-who VERBS' [agentive suffix]), or electroencephalography (AGrk ēlektro- 'electrum (silver-gold alloy)' + enkephalo- 'brain' (from en- 'in' + kephal- 'head', thus the 'brain' as '(that which is) inside the head'). See also below for other technical vocabulary from the Greek.
2. Lobeck, Anne; Denham, Kristin (2013). Navigating English Grammar: A Guide to Analyzing Real Language. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. p. 46. ISBN 111834023X. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
  The book notes:
  English has borrowed and continues to borrow affixes from other languages – primarily Latin and Greek – to create words via derivational affixation:
  [Table 2.1 is displayed]
  Latin:
  [two Latin suffixes]
  Greek:
  -archy: anarchy, monarchy, matriarchy
  -gram: telegram, anagram, cardiogram
  -graph: telegraph, phonograph, radiograph
  -logue/log: catalog, travelogue, analog,
  -oid: trapezoid, humanoid, Freakazoid
  -phile/phobe: audiophile, homophobe, arachnophobe
  And some words are hybrids, or English words derived using Latin and Greek morphemes, such as television (from Greek telos "far" and Latin visio "vision") and mammography (from Latin mamma "breast" and Greek graphia "writing").
3. Denning, Keith M.; Kessler, Brett; Leben, William Ronald (2007). English Vocabulary Elements. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 127. ISBN 0198037538. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
  The book notes:
  Numeral Morphemes; Distinguishing between Latin and Greek Morphemes
  The numeral morphemes of Latin and Greek are among the commonest found in English words. Most of them are already familiar to you. Their use often illustrates the tendency to combine Latin morphemes with other Latin morphemes and Greek morphemes with other Greek morphemes. For example, with the root gon 'angle' which comes from Greek, we can use the Greek numeral morpheme penta 'five' in pentagon 'a five-sided geometrical figure'. But with the root later 'side', which comes from Latin, we use the Latin numeral morpheme quadr 'four' in quadrilateral 'a four-sided geometrical figure'. Morphemes often occur with others from the same source language simply because the entire word was borrowed from that language. The word pentagon, for example, originated in Greek; it wasn't first coined in English from Greek roots. Words that are coined anew in English frequently violate the tendency for a word's morphemes to be monolingual in origin. The word monolingual itself is a violation, as it is composed of mon 'one' (G) and lingu 'tongue' (L). Other examples of this kind of mixing are neonate (G, L), amoral (G, L), dysfunction (G, L) and posthypnotic (L, G).
  These violations are perfectly valid words, but it is useful to be aware of the strong tendency for words with roots from a given language to contain other morphemes from that language. There are some signs that tell you when a prefix or root morph is Greek rather than Latin. The best clues are the presence in one of the roots of one or more of the following:
4. Márquez, Miguel Fuster, ed. (2011). Working with Words: An Introduction to English Linguistics. Valencia: University of Valencia. p. 69. ISBN 8437085799. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
  The book notes:
  Admittedly, Modern English has an important number of affixes, most of them derivational. Speakers of Romance languages are often surprised by the large proportion of English affixes which are basically the same as those in the inventory of their own languages. Such affixes perform similar functions as in other European languages and are frequently seen in the same complex words. The reason is that English acquired these Latinate and Greek morphemes through contact with Fren and Latin (see Fuster 1995). The sample in (10) bears witness to the importance of these imports:
  (10)
  Prefixes:
  a- as in amoral, atheist
  sub- as in subdivision, sub-total
  co- as in co-author, co-pilot
  Suffixes:
  -able as in acceptable, adorable
  -ance as in ignorance, brilliance
  -cy as in frequency, bureaucracy
  These identities also prove that a large section of the vocabulary—and morphemic inventory of English—may be acquired without great effort by speakers of Romance languages. A particular consequence in English is that they have introduced synonymic patterns in their morphemic system, where Romance affixes coexist with various other native affixes: for example, dis-, in-, non- and un- basically have the same meaning as "not".
5. Miller, Roy Andrew (2015). Nihongo: In Defence of Japanese. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 21. ISBN 1474247229. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
  The book notes:
  The process by which these Chinese-based neologisms have been made up in Japan from Chinese lexical materials is almost exactly parallel to the way in which English has provided itself with most of its modern scientific, technical, and medical vocabulary by coining neologisms on the basis of Latin and Greek. Just as the Greek morphemes meaning 'eye' and 'a watcher' have been combined to form the English neologism ophthalmoscope, so also have countless new words been coined in Japan by combining Chinese morphemes, particularly since the late nineteenth century and especially in science, technology, and medicine, where the inherited vocabuulary of the language, whether native Japanese of borrowed Chinese, was naturally inadequate to the requirements of industrialization and modernization.
6. Hamilton, Fran Santoro (1998). Hands-on English. St. Louis: Pavilion Books. ISBN 0966486706. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
  The Google Books snippet view notes:
  Many English morphemes originated in other languages. Hippopotamus, for example, combines the Greek morpheme hippos, meaning "horse," with the Greek morpheme potamos, meaning "river." The hippopotamus is, literally, a "river horse.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject also passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
The subject also passes Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words:
Glossaries – alphabetical, topical lists of terms, rather than of notable entities – are encyclopedic when the entries they provide are primarily informative explorations of the listed terminology, pertaining to a notable topic that already has its own main article on Wikipedia.
For example, the Greek morphemes hippopotamus, neonate, amoral, dysfunction, pentagon, television, mammography, and ophthalmoscope (which are discussed in the sources I provided) all are notable topics.
Cunard (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to Rhododendrites's suggestion to merge this article to List of Greek and Latin roots in English, but I recommend that the editorial decision to merge or not merge be made outside of AfD. Subject-matter experts may have reasons to keep the two articles separate or to merge them. Pinging AlecTore (talk · contribs), who contested the earlier close. What are your thoughts about a merge? Cunard (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greek and Latin roots in English as suggested above. That list is already more comprehensive and the wikilinks in this one are a mess (e.g. the link for miso). --Reinoutr (talk) 21:27, 7 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 Nepalese films. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kallywood Films 2015[edit]

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

No notability. Very short list. Most of the films listed do not have pages of their own. Prof TPMS (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Nepalese films. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete We have no need for an article about a single year of Nepalese films since there are so few. However I wonder if delete were better since Kallywood isn't that common of a name and Kollywood seems to be the more common variation of it. However redirect is a much easier and polite procedure and could have been done even without this AfD (just so that you know for the future -- if they revert it then you come here). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect List of Nepalese films per above. Seriously, who was asking for this to have a separate page given the little amount of these types of films released that year? edtiorEهեইдအ😎 03:36, 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, and not just due to vote count. The sources provided by Cunard adequately demonstrate significant coverage although the last one seems to be a blog. But as Murry1975 noted, "barely passing" WP:CORPDEPTH is still passing. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw Academy[edit]

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

Created by an openly COI/SPA editor. Nothing to the article. Institution is not notable. No real press coverage from recognised publications apart from the huffpo article (the independent one is more of a classified listing) Rayman60 (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They run a variety of online courses in the fi3eld of business, for individuals and companies. They don't award degrees. The references aren't real--the one in The Independent is a straightforward advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also, because this is another newly founded company with none of the coverage being solid enough. SwisterTwister talk 00:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I have added more reliable sources, Shaw Academy teaches about 55,000 new students each month. AdianPhy (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor is SPA with an openly declared COI. It should be noted when considering notability of subject, that some of this large number of students would be from promotions such as a wowcher £19 course or this £1.99 course Rayman60 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it passes WP:GNG. Murry1975 (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many reliable sources available. AdianPhy (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Revesencio, Jonha (2015-04-19). "A Look at Coursera, The Shaw Academy and Lynda.com: Which One Stands Out?". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
  The article notes:
  The Shaw Academy differentiates itself by focusing on live online education, teaching and human support. It offers 10 courses which include nutrition, marketing, photography and financial trading. It is recognized by various international organizations such as the International Compliance Association, Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, and the NCFE.
2. O'Donoghue, Paul (2016-01-30). "40 new jobs at Dublin e-learning company". Irish Independent. Archived from the original on 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
  The article notes:
  Irish online learning firm Shaw Academy is to create 40 jobs in the coming months as part of a global expansion.
  ...
  The Irish-owned business, which has just over 200 staff globally, provides live online learning globally.
  It is one of the largest live online skills educators on the planet, teaching over 55,000 new students per month in seven languages.
  Courses include digital marketing, mobile app development and nutrition. Students who take the courses receive over ten hours of live learning.
3. O'Brien, Clara (2016-01-29). "Shaw Academy to create 40 jobs in Dublin". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
  The article notes:
  Irish education technology company Shaw Academy is to create 40 jobs at its Dublin office in the next six months, and it is planning further expansion next year.
  ...
  The academy currently teaches about 55,000 new students each month, with courses available in everything from digital marketing and app development to nutrition and weight management. The courses are delivered in seven languages, with students attending “webinars”.
  Based in Dublin, it was set up almost four years ago by James Egan and Adrian Murphy, and has a number of offices around the world, including live e-learning centre at East Point in Dublin.
4. Agrawal, AJ (2015-09-30). "5 Benefits That Make Online Learning With Shaw Academy the Future of Education". Archived from the original on 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
  The article notes:
  At online learning communities like the Shaw Academy, all courses are broadcast live by expert educators. Furthermore, an expert support team remains on hand throughout each live event to ensure that all questions asked actually receive an answer--in real time. This facility leads to a higher standard of education, and a higher success rate amongst students.
5. Long, Mark (2015-06-19). "Shaw Academy - Benefits Of Live Online Courses". Patch Media. Archived from the original on 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
  The article notes:
  Shaw Academy, based in Dublin, Ireland operates worldwide in a variety of languages, including Spanish, French, German, Italian, Russian and Portuguese, offers professional online higher education services. Their courses consists of live classes, subject material, replay recordings of modules and other additional content, all (apart from th live classes obviously) available 24/7. After the completion of the course and the online exam you will be awarded with an accredited Diploma. It is important to note that Shaw Academy has been approved by NCFE, CPD and other relevant international bodies that give accreditations to higher education institutions.
  They have also taught over 150 000 people already, and the ones that posted reviews are all satisfied with the courses they took and recommend Shaw Academy to others. Courses available at Shaw Academy include Photography, Financial Trading, Nutrition, Digital Marketing, and many others.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shaw Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:06, 28 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 // 03:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Most of the sources provided and that I can find poorly contribute to notability. The coverage in The Huffington Post devotes one short paragraph plus a pros and cons list, which barely passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage because the subject plans to hire 40 people is typical business/job seeker information that spans a few days, not indicating that the company is at least the center of attention in some part of the sources. While the news is of a national scope (see WP:AUD), the subject is based in Ireland's capital, meaning that it is more likely to receive more attention by national news than a company in a smaller Irish municipality. In addition, they sound like a promotion (see WP:SPIP). Esquivalience ^t 19:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"which barely passes WP:CORPDEPTH". Passes. "the subject is based in Ireland's capital, meaning that it is more likely to receive more attention by national news than a company in a smaller Irish municipality." It is not up to wikipedia to adjust guidelines based on where a company operates. Per WP:AUD, "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" there are two national sources. Murry1975 (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being sourced enough to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough sources and WP is not paper. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough here notability wise - passes GNG. Good sources. 1:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. The subject is notable, as is indicated by the citations, and by a look at the official website listed ("as featured on CNBC, Bloomberg", etc.). While the article itself may be a bit on the small side, it could become a viable entry with improvement. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:19, 8 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FortuneBuilders Gives[edit]

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

I don't find evidence of notability for this program, in contrast to its parent FortuneBuilders organization. Regarding the sources given in the article, two are the organization's own website, one is a press release, and one has a passing mention in an article about Than Merrill. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with User:Largoplazo. I feel that this article breaches WP:Notability, due to its inadaquate sourcing and lack of reliable sources not connected to the organization itself. According to a source which was not properly referenced, "FortuneBuilders Gives has raised approximately $184,000 and worked with 129 charities on various food, clothing, and school supply drives." If true, this surely breaches WP:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaptinkeiff (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 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 // 03:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just the philanthropic arm of a non-notable company. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 7 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djuradj Vujcic[edit]

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

Article seems to be about a young journalist and cited almost entirely to the Urban Book Circle website (which he founded) and articles by him. The only possible claim to importance is an unidentified Literary Guild Award when he was about 17 years old (I can't establish who makes this award or whether it is important). At the moment this article is simply a poorly sourced CV. Sionk (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that "HRH Crown Prince Alexander II Karadjordjevic has recommended him for his Photoshop, PowerPoint and Microsoft Office skills.[5]", with a cite to his company's website, is one of the more bizarre assertions of notability that I have seen of late. Delete. I can't see substantial coverage from independent non-affiliated sources. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE, at least for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I've been praised by various obscure royals for my expertise in Excel. freshacconci talk to me 18:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As creator of the article. Tempo21 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr. Vujcic might be a talented sports journalist but I'm afraid WP:CONTN applies here. --N Jordan (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. While there's enough here that he would probably be eligible to keep a properly sourced article, the sourcing in this article is almost entirely to self-published and/or affiliated non-independent sources that cannot aid in getting a person over WP:GNG. A writer does not automatically pass WP:AUTHOR just because their own self-published PR materials, or their bylines on newspaper articles about other topics, verify that they exist — a writer gets over AUTHOR when they're the subject of coverage in media sources which are independent of themselves, but that hasn't been shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON but I can't source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see external sources listed. Djordje does show up on a Google search as well. PidgeCopetti (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's the bylined author, not the subject, of every single "external source" in this article whose content we're actually able to verify at all. And "shows up on a Google search" does not automatically constitute notability, either — we have to evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of Google hits, because a Google search is also going to include social media links, content where he's the bylined author and not the subject, hits for other unrelated people with the same name, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a classic case of Wikihounding. McMeade (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? How'd you come to that conclusion? It doesn't make Djuradj Vujcic any more notable either way. Sionk (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are external sources (albeit not in English). I vote keep but keep in mind the crystal ball rule. Bruno Mammoth (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Where do you see a single external source in this article in which he's the subject, rather than the bylined author, of the source's content? Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 are all external sources about him and they seem to be adequate. The only trouble is finding them and translating them to English. Bruno Mammoth (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 doesn't have him attributed as its author, I'll admit: it has his father attributed as its author, so it's still not a source that assists notability at all. And we don't keep an article on the basis of "two or three of these sources look like they might, maybe, be better than the others if, maybe, we could verify what they said", either — we have to actually be able to verify what those sources say, especially in an article where by far the majority of the sourcing is already in the not-acceptable pile. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bruno Mammoth! --N Jordan (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bruno Mammoth (talk) 21:40, 29 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 // 02:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Tempo21 can provide more information about that Literary Guild Award and the title of "youngest sports journalist in Canadian journalism history". The URL for the reference 4 is broken. For references 2 and 3 - it would be great to see them. References 1, 7,8, and 11 are personal trivia - they don't establish him as a journalist and/or translator. References 9, 10, and 12-17 are by him, not about him. Reference 6 is about him, but not sure if it can establish notability. At least 2/3 of the article are not about the journalism. This article (as is) is more about the person who is also a journalist than about a notable professional journalist. We don't discuss Djuradj Vujicic but the article about him. N Jordan (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should I provide scans? Does ref. 6 not establish notability? Tempo21 (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the list of Red nation contributors? Why would that confer notability? That only shows he writes for a soccer website. Sionk (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If ref. 2 and 3. could provide information who and when awarded the Literary Guild Award and the title of the youngest sports journalist in Canadian journalism history, that is something that would help to verify those claims. --N Jordan (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources I was unable to spot Mi magazin. Moreover, the ISSN number provided is invalid. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it invalid? Tempo21 (talk) 13:31, 6 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) 02:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila O'Sullivan[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Career seemed extremely brief and google provided nothing. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of her listed works satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. There is barely anything of note in the article, and it doesn't seem like there's much room for expansion at all. Cindlevet (talk) 15:15, 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. Sandstein 09:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fastest accelerating SUVs[edit]

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

Can anybody please tell me the point of this list? A list for cars in general is fine as the media talks about it a lot, but a list for suburban soccer-mom gas-guzzling grocery getters? What is the benefit of this list?

This criteria is purely WP:OR as not all SUVs have 4WD, also pick-up trucks are not SUV. The source cited does not make claim that the BMW X6M or any others are the fastest accelerating SUV out there. Unless I've seen a list for the fastest production sub-1-liter 4-seater city car or the fastest production unicycle, I don't see the point of this list. Donnie Park (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the search list! now added, there were surprisingly many articles covering this subject, although times are harder. The everyday practicality is one of the things that set SUVs apart from Veyrons and Lamborghinis - it's not up to us to discriminate against soccer moms, whatever their juice. We sort the lists by verified timing, not words - the sources don't have to claim "fastest", they just have to record times. We discussed the criteria at length for the main list, and can for SUV list also - and others. Don't like pickup-trucks? Argue their own list. Don't like 4WD? Then set a different criteria for not sliding into race car territory (4+ seats?) - but arguably, all relevant performance SUVs do have 4WD. Don't like the title? Then argue a different title. Be sure to add that city car list too. TGCP (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thank me. Well, not all pick-up trucks have 4 seats, not even the HSV Maloo R8 and that achieves 0-100 in 4.9 nor is 4WD either, being based on a Holden Commodore. I take that won't make inclusion criteria despite being a pick-up truck. Donnie Park (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: to facetiously connect to the above, I don't like the article, so I argue for deleting it. Seriously though, lists aren't supposed to cover every possible intersection of obscure criteria. Wikipedia is not a cache for SQL queries. Do we have a "Wikipedia is NOT a cache of SQL queries" policy? Maybe we should... WP:INDISCRIMINATE may come close. LjL (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely irrelevant non-encyclopaedic material. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (of course, I made it) per WP:Notability, subject is well covered by media which also sets the outline of criteria and a valid categorization (so, WP:NOTDIR doesn't apply) - no OR needed here. "Like" og "Dislike" should not be a valid argument for keep or delete; specific reasons are needed. TGCP (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goes both ways. Your arguments about "liking" are about as valid as my (facetious) one, i.e. they aren't. I had other arguments though. I'm curious: if those external links are valid enough sources to establish notability, then why are they external links rather than references? LjL (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using proper arguments instead of (dis-)"liking" pickups or 4WD - "liking" is not a main argument. The external links (which don't include pickups) kindly supplied by the "Find sources" function above are new, but as some question the rather minute difference between this and the main article, I guess we could work to include them more formally. In due time. TGCP (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Constantly changing, irrelevant, and non-encyclopedic and WP:PEACOCK material originating from the marketing departments and advertising agencies of car makers, as well as their beholden automotive journalists. This is nothing more than a WP:PROMO for companies, rather than authentic knowledge. This list also falls under the category of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (even if covered by select media) and that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). In short, this list of boastful superlatives (BS) does not belong in an encyclopedia. Moreover, there is already a List of fastest production cars by acceleration, so there is no reason for a separate list for SUV-type vehicles (which in itself are subject to interpretation). If this list remains, then there should be lists of acceleration for every conceivable type of vehicle, such as autonomous cars, convertibles, hearses, busses, electric cars, pickup trucks, etc. In other words, this is pointless list (except to satisfy fanboys of particular auto brands) that will need updating on a constant basis and also contribute to endless arguments as to identical test conditions, use of non-stock equipment or modifications, etc. CZmarlin (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete - the information is somewhat interesting, and it struck me that it could be added as a table to List of fastest production cars by acceleration.. but then that would open that page up to a table for every other sub-type of vehicle that might be counter-productive. Shritwod (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CZmarlin. It is difficult even to determine where the limits of the subject lie.Charles (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can rely on third-party sources to determine what is an "SUV" and not. A75 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now this will help you, now you know my point that pick-ups and SUV are not the same, not all in terms of chassis or is it that you never seen a car based pick-up trucks like the Ford P100, Holden Ute or the Chevrolet El Camino. What about the Morris Minor, they had a pickup truck in their line-up; if that was fast enough to meet criteria, will it be included? If you look at the Euro NCAP, they class "off-road" and pick-ups differently. Personally, I think the inclusion criteria is totally controversial. I don't know if you remembered the old list of supercars and the supercar article from many years ago but I remembered it before I became an editor, one has since been salted away and the other reduced from what it was then respectively because they were subjective enough to spark arguments like this list will. You know my point, this article is as good as a list of fastest drying paint? Donnie Park (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like nice counterpart to cars and has plenty of references.A75 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google has almost 70k hits for "fastest SUV"[5] A75 (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that must be the weakest WP:GOOGLE-type argument I've ever heard, and they're all pretty weak... it gets a full 49 (!) results on Google Books, which is a slightly more reliable test for encyclopedic subjects than all-out "Google search" can be. LjL (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those 50 includes everything from Popular Science to marketing books? and that is just for the term "fastest suv" A75 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CZ & Charles - What next ... "List of fastest growing plants" ? ..... Vehicle speeds (although not fast accelerating) etc are on the individual car model articles so IMHO none of this is even needed, We're an encyclopedia.... not a car magazine!, 5 references isn't plenty either ... It's not even a handful!, Anyway IMHO it's better off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 15:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a encyclopedia of different topics, including being an Automotive encyclopedia. To fulfill being an encyclopedia of vehicles, and yes, an encyclopedia of SUV's this seems like a reasonable topic for inclusion. Cheers A75 (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite including different topics, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of WP:EVERYTHING. You need to show that the topic is suitable and just implying that any topic is won't do. LjL (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LJL's bang on - IMHO We don't need articles for every little thing in the world unless ofocurse it's actually notable which in this case it isn't..... –Davey2010^Talk 20:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SUV's are not "everything" they are a major class of automobile. A75 (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are hatchbacks and MPVs .... Doesn't mean we need moronic articles on how fast they accelerate tho!, If you wanna send this shit to Wikia go & knock yourself out but this website isn't a magazine nor is it a fansite (and as I've said speeds etc etc are all on the individual model articles.). –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 6 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✈ 05:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Network International[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. There are no significant sources about this organization Ylevental (talk) 02:00, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Improve The nom is quite correct that this article does not pass GNG as is, but a couple of google searches leads me to believe that sources exist, at least for "Autreat", an annual retreat this organization sponsors (which may suggest the article should be renamed "Autreat" but that's up to article editors). For starters, Slate gives some non-trivial coverage in this article, citing a printed academic work. The NYT link in the Wiki article is only trivial coverage, but mentions in two major publications based on just a cursory look suggests sources are out there. Improve the article, don't delete. -Markeer 17:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more sources to the article. It passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's significant coverage of ANI in independent sources. CatPath (talk) 15:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detritus[edit]

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

WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Yes, the word "detritus" is used in the various contexts mentioned here. Does this make "detritus" notable? No, it makes it a word— a word that describes many things besides decaying plant mater. "Detritus" can refer to any bit of matter out of place, making a Wikipedia entry for it fundamentally a dictionary entry. The processes described here are not tied to this word in an encyclopedic way, they are tied to it in a vocabularistic way— vocabulary is the stuff of dictionaries. The references happen to use the word detritus— again, that doesn't make detritus notable (note how even saying that sounds odd). KDS4444^Talk 02:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is about the detritus as a material, not about the definition and use of detritus as a word. Conforms to WP:NOTDICTIONARY. -- Paleorthid (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the article itself is not phrased as a definition doesn't mean the article skirts WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this only means it has been presented here as more than a dictionary entry, which I still believe it fundamentally is not. KDS4444^Talk 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2006, Detritus (biology) has redirected to Detritus. The lede specifies "In biology...". You object that the unmodified term detritus has a meaning outside of biology, equivalent to refuse. Instead of deletion, why are you not proposing the article be renamed back to Detritus (biology)? Is it because you feel Detritus (geology) should be deleted per the same policy? -- Paleorthid (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beginnings of sourcing for a real materials science subject, so acceptable for wikipedia. Poor article as of this writing though. -Markeer 17:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is nothing like a dictionary entry and, even if it were, it wouldn't be a reason to delete the page., Andrew D. (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat: WP:NOTADICTIONARY. That it is not phrased as such does not mean that it is a topic that warrants a standalone article. We already have an article on Detritus (geology), perhaps this should be redirected there rather than have two articles? KDS4444^Talk 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KDS has it backwards. WP:NOTADICTIONARY is summarised as "This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." So, the fact that Detritus (geology) uses the same word is irrelevant here as it is not the same topic. That page is is about mineral debris whereas this one is about organic debris. The latter topic is notable as it is easy to find substantial sources such as Detritus and Microbial Ecology in Aquaculture. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Detritus has a specific meaning in this article, as particulate deceased and decaying organic matter, along with feces. It is the food for detritivores and decomposers and forms the basis for the detrital food chain. Detritus is a basic concept in biology and ecology; a simple WP:BEFORE search shows "detritus food chain" gets thousands of hits on GBooks, many of the first hits being ecology textbooks and more than a thousand hits in GScholar. The concept seems highly notable. The article could use better sourcing, but this is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. A highly notable topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I know that the word is popular and that it occurs lots of places. So does the world "is" and the word "the". This isn't a question of sourcing (per se) but a question of "what is Wikipedia?" If it is not a dictionary, then this word does not belong here (unless it acquires some specific meaning such as the name of a popular and notable band or a notable book title, etc.). Inasmuch as "detritus" simply means "refuse" (which it does, according to the references given) then this article is a near perfect example of what Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be about. And if it isn't, then I ask those !voting to keep to indicate what they think is? (Go on, think of a word and conduct a search. It's all there.) KDS4444^Talk 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, detritus is jargon that has a specific meaning in biology and ecology. Detritus doesn't mean "refuse". Refuse refers to any sort of discarded or unwanted materials; a heap of scrap metal could be called refuse. But detritus, used in the sense here, is confined to organic material and includes matter like dead organisms, which are neither discarded nor unwanted. Biologists refer to organisms that eat this material as detritivores, not refusivores. The fact that "detritus" may have a more general meaning to the lay public has no bearing on this specific topic. There is a disambiguation page for the word at Detritus (disambiguation) if you are looking for other uses of the term.--Mark viking (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 09:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sinclair (activist)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. There are no significant sources focusing on this individual. To add, by WP:BLPSELFPUB most of the article is based on self-published sources. It would be better to merge this article into Autism Network International Ylevental (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad Faith nomination made after the removal of sources that were perfectly reliable and acceptable. Nominator developing a habit of trying to delete articles that contradict his views on autism per his edits on Ari Ne'eman, Temple Grandin and John Elder Robison amongst maybe others as well (haven't checked all of his recent edits yet). Definitely notable under WP:GNG. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sinclair was the first person to talk about autistic rights and was the founder of ANI. The article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient reliable sources to pass GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:27, 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. WP:SNOW, WP:SK#1. Whether specific content on the article is appropriate is an editorial discussion best left to the article's talk page, as it has no bearing on the notability of the article subject. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 09:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective diagnoses of autism[edit]

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

This was started in 2005, but much has changed since then, especially around WP:BLP. The core problem with this list lies in the difference between a list and a category(of which it is substantially duplicative, incidentally). Much of those retrospective diagnoses come from Michael Fitzgerald, who is one source and controversial. It would be better to merge the specific descriptions into other Wikipedia articles if necessary. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_with_autism_spectrum_disorders for similar arguments Ylevental (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another bad faith nomination as per the Jim Sinclair AfD and a touch of butthurt as well over the Adolf Hitler claim on this page. Agree with the Fitzgerald note, but there are plenty of other sources making this able to stand on it's own. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list is unnecessary. There is too much speculation and too many figures. This is the only "retrospective diagnoses" list on Wikipedia. Ylevental (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not happy with waiting for the AfD or building a consensus, the nominator removed the list in the article and explained their true motive in this and numerous similar nominations: "Removing list of individuals and specific figures, as this could be used to push an agenda". What agenda? The same agenda espoused by the various organizations and individuals covered in the other nominated articles:the idea that autism may be something other than an illness to be cured. Whether or not information from reliable sources could be used to support an agenda is a great organizing theme for a book burning. It is not, however, within the policies or guidelines of Wikipedia. The subject is clearly notable and well sourced. Whether or not the list is appropriate is a subject for discussion aimed at a consensus. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I saw a link to this AFD at ANI. Based on the title I thought this article could be problematic, if extra effort hadn't been put into it to make sure it was well referenced, and neutrally written. But, after looking at the article I am satisfied that enough effort has been put in to referencing and neutrality that any problems challengers see with it should be addressed through regular editing, and discussion on the talk page -- not deletion.
For what it is worth I extend AGF to the nominator. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:55, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Rogelio Laranang Sr.[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. He created his own system, opened a few schools, and suddenly became a 10th dan. None of these show notability. There is no significant independent coverage of him and nothing to show he meets any of the martial arts notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. This should have been linked to the ongoing AfD on the style he created. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kajukenfu.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. No significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:44, 7 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. Sandstein 17:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rany Saadeh[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. He also doesn't meet WP:GNG since his coverage can be considered routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Hi! I created this page last week and I'm working on improving it, it's my first page. The rules quoted state a fighter is "presumed notable" if they meet those criteria. While he may not have fought for a top tier organisation title, he is BAMMA champion, which as second tier organisations go, is a large one. BAMMA has it's own page, and have many notable fighters have come from their organisation like Neil Seery, Gunnar Nelson, Tom Watson, Steven Ray etc. Is a champion in this organisation not be considered notable enough for a page also?

I have added more information today to try to establish notability. If there is something I can do specifically to help keep the article I would be happy to! Thanks. Nophiller (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that many good fighters have come from BAMMA does not make all BAMMA fighters (or even champions) notable. This is under WP:NOTINHERITED. When you create an article you need to make sure he either meets WP:GNG or the notability criteria for his field. Saadeh meets neither. Make sure you keep a copy of the article in your sandbox so, even if it's deleted, you can work on it and resubmit it when he becomes notable.Mdtemp (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Routine coverage of his fights and youtube videos are not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:10, 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. Sandstein 08:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Iranian colors[edit]

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

Completely bogus self-made fantasy article. Pure historial revisionism with an attempt to "group" together flags of various nations and defunct entities based on language. This article is nothing more than someone's fantasy which he/she tried to make seem as if its actually reality. There's absolutely no such thing as "Pan-Iranian colors". This needs to be deleted ASAP, as hoaxes and articles based upon fantasy don't belong on an encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced, appears to be original research. We do have other similar articles such as Pan-Arab colors or Pan-African colors, but those articles are sourced and appear to describe a real, identified concept. There is no evidence to support this concept. --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 7 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) 01:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lief Larson[edit]

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

Per WP:DEL8, fails WP:ANYBIO. See also discussion at BLP Notice board --Jahaza (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The subject himself has stated that the article is inaccurate and wishes it to be removed. The main problem seems to be that there has been no significant update to the article since 2008, although some references were added in 2010. Some persons would be pushing for PROMO with this profile, and I would consider this one a weak delete. However, given that 1) it is out of date, so no one is really interested in it 2) he himself would like to see it deleted 3) he's pretty much an average business person, I'll say delete. LaMona (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better and the current article would need it to be kept. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Community Capital Marketplace[edit]

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

This is an advertisement with no demonstrated notability. giso6150 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: By my reading, the article is a weave between musings about the impact and opportunities of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act and an advertisement for one particular venture. The broader topic is already covered at Equity_crowdfunding#United_States, and I don't see notability for the venture. Nor since the title is trademarked is it appropriate for a redirect to the existing article section. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 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 00:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quite noticeably unacceptable because of the listed tone and information, nothing else convincing so best restarted at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 4 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. As made up. I think that the sense of this discussion is that mention of a possible (mis)use of this term for criminal purposes could be made in the appropriate plant article if reliable sources for it can be found, and at that time a redirect might be appropriate. Sandstein 14:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariocarpus lophophora[edit]

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

According to user Lithopsian there is no such species and the name is also not synonymous with Lophophora diffusa. I could not find any references for A. lophophora either. So it appears that this taxon was made up by the article's creator. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No such species. There are some online vendors selling "Ariocarpus lophophora", but it appears to me to be an intentional mislabelling/ruse by vendors in countries where peyote is (perhaps) legal to allow them to send them to countries where it is illegal. Photos provided by vendors are Lophophora species, not Ariocarpus. See Q&A for this Amazon item, this reddit thread and another reddit thread. edit: Actually this reddit thread really lays it out. Plantdrew (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 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 00:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ - Well in that case, since Plantdrew is apparently correct, this should be redirected to Lophophora with a note that it is an invalid name used by unscrupulous dealers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we source the redirect information to Reddit or Wikipedia user Plantdew? Or will unsourced be good enough? 2600:380:5677:D6F6:11D8:B20C:FD6A:912B (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ha. Credit the Amazon vendor. The reddit threads I linked don't specifically mention this exact title. Reddit does mention Ariocarpus williamsii (which is an obscure, but sourceable scientific name for peyote) and Ariocarpus caespitosus (which seems to be another invention by online vendors). Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This name and the others are indeed attempts to circumvent rules prohibiting sale of Lophophora sp by some online marketplaces. I'm concerned that creating a redirect in Wikipedia for this term would somehow legitimise it. At the very least the target article would need to explain why the redirect lands there, otherwise people may assume it is a valid synonym. Lithopsian (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and as I suggested. Of course our mentioning it also assists with law enforcement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Can anyone attribute the selling under a false name to a reliable source? I have been away from Wikipedia for a few years, and it seems we now source things to unspurced Wikipedia image captions, speculation, feelings, Reddit threads, Amazon descriptions, blogs (personal and anonymous), the supposed reputation of our own editors, and who knows what else, our psychics probably. Has policy changed so dramatically? Aren't we still writing an encyclopedia, not providing tools for the police and speculative articles because things might be real? 2600:380:5514:7587:AB7B:FAFF:83E6:23A0 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not redirect. I am trusting previous comments and WP articles on the botanic points (no such thing as Ariocarpus lophophora, Ariocarpus are mainly innocuous, Lophophora are psychotrops and subject to regulations/illegal trade). Note that according to this UN report of 1970 some Ariocarpus may be psychoactive as well.

The real question is whether it is established that AL is an intentional misnaming of Lophophora to evade sanctions. While one could certainly establish intentional misnamings of smuggled drugs in general, I have not found anything serious online about this one in particular. Of course, one would expect to find shaky sources before official ones for that kind of issues, but Reddit/Amazon threads are still too thin to support a strong factual assertion (such as "Lophophora have been marketed under other names for smuggling purposes"). Tigraan (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit supports "Lophophora have been marketed under other names for smuggling purposes", but I'm not suggesting that Reddit (or Amazon) is a reliable source that can be included in Wikipedia. Even if it were a suitable source for Wikipedia, Reddit doesn't mention "Ariocarpus lophophora" specifically as one of the other names. Amazon does mention "Ariocarpus lophophora", but will that listing still be up in a few months time? Probably not. Redditors noted that some of the mislabelled items they'd ordered from previously have been taken down. It's likely that Amazon will take the item down at some point (it still includes the string "lophophora", which ought to raise a red flag). Plantdrew (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew Do you mean reliable or unreliable? But if the only issue is transience, we can archive the page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Left out a "not" there. I don't think Amazon/Reddit are reliable for our purposes. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense!

Delete, without prejudice to recreating when better sources arise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as factually incorrect and deliberately misleading.Atlantic306 (talk) 04:14, 7 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 merge to Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Sandstein 08:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hegemony discursive theory Laclau-Mouffe[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of IP editor. Original rationale: This page should be deleted: it contradicts itself throughout, is almost entirely inaccurate, and verges on plain nonsense. It certainly has little to do with Mouffe and Laclau. For these reasons, I have nominated the page for deletion. (diff) clpo13_(talk) 18:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are more than adequate. This is one of the central ideas of a book that has almost 12,000 citations, so certainly notable. Bad grammar is not a reason for deletion, and "verging on plain nonsense" is merely postmodernism's job description. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I initially assumed the rather awkward text indicated this to be a machine translation from the linked Russian article. However a Google Russian-English translation provides a more comprehensible equivalent of the present article text, at least maintaining recognisable concepts such as "millennium" (not "containing a thousand"). AllyD (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge: The first question here is whether this merits a distinct article or is covering the same topic as Hegemony_and_Socialist_Strategy#Reception and should be merged there? That article is woefully under-referenced, whereas this article carries a number of citations of reference books which would appear to confirm its notability (though I do not have the books to hand to check). On the other hand, the present article is an indigestable exposition which could weigh down the article on the book. I would suggest a selective merge of the Influence subsection with its references and the Bibliography section into Hegemony_and_Socialist_Strategy. It may also be possible to expand that article's Organization section with some material from this article's Fundamental regulations section, but only that which is both clear and referenced. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 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 00:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge per AllyD, I certainly wouldn't wish to guess which would be better. Notability seems well established, so simple deletion is not in question. However the translation gook of the gobble methinks is it. Therefore a merge to take advantage of the references with as much of a rewrite as is possible may be the best option. But AfD is not for cleanup. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. I still stand by my argument and think this should be on Wiktionary, but I acknowledge that there is no chance of this passing. (non-admin closure) LjL (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek and Latin roots in English[edit]

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

This seems to strikingly fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY. It's an interesting and useful list, and it appears to be well-made, but Wiktionary would be a much better place for it, where it would also have the ability to be expressed in a more powerful and searchable way than as a textual list. This article's sheer WP:LENGTH testifies how unwieldy it is to treat this topic as a Wikipedia list. I suggest userfying and moving to Wiktionary in due time. LjL (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - think it's a very well-made list and extremely useful - Cannot see how it would fit into dictionary apart from having to include each entry as a separate individual entry. And it's very informative to have both Greek and Latin roots for comparison. I have only just happened upon this list so clearly it needs more linking to. It could possibly be made more known and useful by including referrals in leads of many pages. Also seems that the length is irrelevant - it's not an article.--Iztwoz (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not an article? Of course it's an article. Lists are articles. They are defined as such on Wikipedia and must follow article rules (aside from list rules). And yes, of course, you'd make this fit into Wiktionary by having each entry be an individual entry: that way, the entries could actually be, you know, searched. Like dictionary entries. And if you still wanted to see a full list, you could, as you'd just have to give each entry a Category:Greek or Latin root in English and browse that category, because that's why categories exist (on Wikipedia but also on Wiktionary). LjL (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it's not a page that anyone would read through from beginning to end - but one that would be referred to - as such the length is irrelevant. Don't understand your stance on this - do you propose that all lists be passed to Wiktionary? --Iztwoz (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also from WP:Lists - #For the general reader - "Lists should enhance the encyclopedic value of content rather than diminish it". Which to my mind is exactly what this list does. --Iztwoz (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All lists that basically are dictionary-type list (even if they don't constitute a whole general dictionary obviously), sure. Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY - it's written down, I'm not making it up. What I don't understand is this feeling I get that Wiktionary is being treated as a second-class citizen and even if things are more appropriate there than here, it's undesirable to move them unless absolutely unavoidable. Because that's the feeling I get from this AfD so far. LjL (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A hard one, but since there are so many sources about Greek and Latin roots and their role in the English language this does ultimately meet WP:LISTGLOSSARY. The argument regarding length is poor. Not only is there no maximum, but this is a list of X and Y. Shouldn't it be obvious that if it's too long, it should just be split into a list of X and a list of Y? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both would still be pretty long though, Rhododendrites. But I consider my length argument secondary to the WP:NOTDICTIONARY one and to the simple fact that this seems so well suited to Wiktionary. I don't want this content wiped out, but it could be in a much more useful format in a more suitable place. LjL (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Greek and Latin roots in English is an encyclopedic subject in addition to a lexicographical subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point Rhododendrites but I think under that line of reasoning, the topic would be encyclopedic if treated in prose as a description of how Greek and Latin roots entered English and developed within it, with prominent examples, while a listing of them would be a lexicographical subject. LjL (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also fair. I agree that we should do a better job of covering the subject in prose, but I don't agree that this list has no place on Wikipedia to support that prose. It's certainly not cut and dry though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - important enough topic on Wikipedia that we are justified having an article on here rather than kicking people over to Wiktionary. Blythwood (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm resigned at this point to seeing this article kept, but I won't stop pointing out how appalling I find the fact that various people use wording like "kicking people over to Wiktionary". It seems that many Wikipedians have a very low opinion of their sister project Wiktionary, which is probably only to be used for dictionary topics that are not very "important"... LjL (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS IT IS VERY USEFUL DO NOT DELETE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbents (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTGLOSSARY. Btw I just noticed the article List of Greek words with English derivatives has been unfortunately recently deleted, while similar articles are still on. Was the deletion a discrimination against Greek language or what? Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 07:54, 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) Esquivalience ^t 00:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Thrones title sequence[edit]

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

I love this show, but beyond the level of detail that is already given at Game_of_Thrones#Title_sequence, I doubt this is notable outside Game of Thrones fandom. There is a comprehensive page on the subject already at gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Title_sequence for those interested. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:55, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to deletion/notability debates, but personally I'd recommend keep. The article is well-written and has several secondary sources. My understanding from perusing the notability page is that existence of secondary sources is a major component of notability. It also seems like the existence of the Wikia page would make the subject more notable, not less notable. That's just my 2¢ worth, though, and I think it ultimately boils down to the inclusionism/deletionism debate. I just hate to see quality articles deleted. --Ppelleti (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 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 00:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The fact that it won an Emmy for the title sequence would suggest some stand-alone notability. At the moment, it reads very fancrufty, but it could be expanded with sources to verify it's own notability. Take alook at the article for The Simpsons opening sequence for more. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article looks to be really well written. While it could use some additional sources - to increase notability - it seems to be good enough in a current state. SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that a couple more sources wouldn't go amiss, but the article is in a good condition overall. Also, just because an outside site has a similar page is irrelevant really. it is whether it is good enough on its own here, and I believe it is. IdenticalHetero (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. See Forbes or the NY Daily News, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 20:02, 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 International Institute of Information Technology, Bhubaneswar. Any merger from history is an editorial decision. Sandstein 08:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advaita (festival)[edit]

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

Non notable technical event of a college. No refs provided. Google search did not provide anything substantial. Already mentioned in the college article which is more than enough at this stage. Lakun.patra (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I added one reference, a two paragraph mention of the event in a College Campus section of The Telegraph (Calcutta), but that is not much, certainly insufficient to demonstrate notability of the event. I agree with the nominator that the mention of the event in the International Institute of Information Technology, Bhubaneswar page suffices, and can be extended as possible, with referenced text. AllyD (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 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 00:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT, not notable as Mood Indigo yet. Merge salvageable content with International Institute of Information Technology, Bhubaneswar, maybe. utcursch | talk 01:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the article about the university. I see no need to delete before doing so.--MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to International Institute of Information Technology, Bhubaneswar per MelanieN. The article contains content and sources like this article in The Telegraph (Calcutta) that can be merged to the university article. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 7 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. Uncontested Sandstein 09:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Art Ideas[edit]

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

Could not find any sources to establish notability. Most refs only hold single one-liners told by the company head and is not about the company itself. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current coverage is not currently solid enough for a better notable article, WP:TNT at best only if better notable later. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 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. As unsourced buzzword salad. Sandstein 08:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operations-Centric Revenue Management[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. giso6150 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is notable, its just stating the obvious, fails WP:BasicAtlantic306 (talk) 04:22, 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 00:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced, original research, with no evidence that the concept is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 7 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 speedy deleted by TomStar81, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joejo[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources provided are not realiable. The reliable sources found including "The Nation" and "Nigeria Bulletin" are not in-depth Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:54, 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 merge to Omagh. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woodbrook Village[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. giso6150 (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Omagh, which presently has no mention of this housing development. This will improve the merge target article, as per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Omagh per Northamerica1000.Charles (talk) 13:53, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Thompson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR – only one "significant" role (barely, as it was a supporting role on a very short-lived show on The WB), and few other roles (all minor). Also, no independent coverage, so fails WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, and there are a lack of independent verifiable sources. Cindlevet (talk) 15:17, 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. Unopposed. Sandstein 08:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja davidii 'Anita Allen'[edit]

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

Delete as promotional article in re obscure "cultivar" or redirect to South Molton. Quis separabit? 02:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 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 00:37, 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 Mehdya, Morocco. Sandstein 08:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ma'mura[edit]

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

"Al Ma'mura" is the former name of Mehdya, Morocco, but I can't find support for "Al Ma'mura" being the former name of Mahdia, Tunisia as well. Actually, it rather seems implausible, though not impossible.
I therefore propose redirecting to ~~Mahdia, Tunisia~~Mehdya, Morocco of course, unless the original author or someone else can bring us some sources backing the claim. PanchoS (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom (probably something that could've been done WP:BOLDLY). I found nothing but Wiki-mirrors in my search. In any case, if sources can be found, the name needs to be added to the Tunisian article, otherwise that entry fails WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I support a redirect to Mehdya, Morocco. I didn't catch that earlier! -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault. Obviously redirect to Mehdya, Morocco. That's what I meant. --PanchoS (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PanchoS: Could you please clarify your recommendation? I believe you are saying that this is a former name of Mehdya, Morocco, but that there is no evidence linking it to Mahdia, Tunisia. But then you recommend redirecting it to Mahdia, Tunisia. Is that actually your recommendation, and if so, could you explain your reasoning? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Thank you so much for pinging me! Of course, I meant: redirect to Mehdya, Morocco. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 06:03, 7 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. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pan European ICT & eBusiness Network for SME[edit]

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

EU organisation with no independent refs. Despite promises a WP:REFUND, no new sources have been added. No incoming wikilinks. Many of the claims, including the 'more than 20 000' headline one, appear to be unsupported by even the non-independent refs. All the links are out of date. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Anpa80 for adding some more sources, as previously promised. The WP:GNG requires that articles have in depth coverage in independent sources; as such to the articles' continued existence we need references that aren't written or published by members or funders of this organisation. These appear to still be lacking. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as my searches only found a few links. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplanet (New Zealand)[edit]

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

The article lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Couldn't find any in-depth hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. GamerPro64 21:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per GamerPro64. Gameplanet.co.nz has a worldwide Alexa rank of 503,750 (not that's an indicator, but it's no wonder it isn't notable). --Soetermans. T / C 12:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no a good article and needs significant work, but in terms of the NZ market they are significant. A quick search pulled up most of the major NZ media outlets covering them. NealeFamily (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some examples? GamerPro64 22:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See NinjaRobotPirate below - I do agree with him that many are press releases by GamePlanet, never the less the two main press outlets in NZ, Stuff and the NZ Herald have covered them as has at least one TV networkTV3. I have not checked their coverage in local PC or gaming magazines, but they seem reasonably well represented on gaming sites here. They are mentioned on the NZ PC World site NealeFamily (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Its content is syndicated at Stuff.co.nz (for example, this article) and the New Zealand Herald (example), and there's this award, but there's very little in-depth coverage that I can see. This article is kind of about it, and this article is a brief announcement. It's tough to say whether this adds up to significant coverage. I'm not sure I see this alleged coverage all major NZ media, but there's some. I can source some of the awards to Scoop.co.nz, but they're verbatim press releases, which aren't really able to show notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Neale Family. James500 (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NRP's sources, which appear to be the best we can do, are together insufficient for writing an in-depth account of the website. The article topic—the website itself and not just citations of its coverage—lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 04:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by NealeFamily and NinjaRobotPirate are enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. For example, this article in Stuff.co.nz discusses the subject directly and in detail. Cunard (talk) 07:37, 7 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) 00:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Tataryn[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based entirely on primary and unreliable sources with no indication of reliable source coverage shown, of a film and television scriptwriter. While that would be enough to get him into Wikipedia if the article were sourced properly, it is not a claim of notability that confers an automatic inclusion freebie on an article that's sourced exclusively to his own self-published website, IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes -- a screenwriter has to be the subject of media coverage to earn a Wikipedia article, and does not automatically get one just because he has an IMDb profile. People are also trying to get entirely unsourced claims in here: in particular, there's a hotel which the article was claiming to be named after the subject and his brother, but the "source" for that claim was just a photograph of the hotel, rather than any source which properly verified the claim that he's its namesake — and my removal of that claim from the article, on the grounds that it wasn't sourced properly to stand under WP:BLP, was then reverted by an anonymous IP with a false claim of "vandalism". Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person at this point. Only references on the article are from primary sources, and a quick search doesn't show any reliable (as per WP:GNG) to exist. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Judging by the comments the nomination has given, the people "contributing" to this article is trying to advertise or promote this person at best as they can. Promotion and advertising is not for Wikipedia. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 03:40, 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. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard & Tag[edit]

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

All references are either companie's own web site or a paid review. No independent coverage. With Google News Search, I was able to found only a handful of hits: [6][7][8][9][10]. None of those look like reliable independent sources to me. And, the article was written by an account named PostcardTag. Promotional purpose is obvious. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't find any coverage in the online archives of any major news outlet in Hong Kong, leaning towards delete. Der yck C. 10:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 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 00:18, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jena Friedman[edit]

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

Nominated by IP editor on Talk:Jena Friedman (diff). Reason given: This person is only a writer for various television shows, and really isn't that notable to have their own page, based on the Wikipedia: Notability Guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.17.137 (talk) 4:33 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8) clpo13_(talk) 09:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an in-depth source here and another one here. Many references found here including a listing here, a paragraph here, a mention here and here and here. She wrote and directed a musical. A quote here. A paragraph here. Thing is, with the international connection (Scotland) and being well-connected with top comedy acts (Letterman, Stewart), plus being a comedian, all adds up to meeting the WP:GNG. If article is kept I'll try to improve it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly notable based on numerous secondary sources providing non-trivial coverage. Wikipedia editors don't decide if something is notable or not, the sources do. This subject has sources. -Markeer 17:54, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurette Atindehou[edit]

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

lack of notability. Haptokar (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Unnotable model. I don't think she's quite worthy of a whole article.~~ Search provided some minor articles, but which were only in Romanian. If there were a list for Romanian models I'd vote merging there, but alas there is no such list. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I padded out the article with the sources I were able to find. The Libertatea website had quite the large number of articles about her. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To me it seems like she has retired, thus not notable anymore. Not per rule book per se but think about it, people get an easier pass while they're active than say 10 years after you won some Miss competition. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's barely anything of note on the page, and I can't find much about her online. Subject fails notability guidelines Cindlevet (talk) 22:34, 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) 00:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subu Kechi[edit]

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

Election candidate who did not win the seat. Other local offices held appear non-notable Uhooep (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 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 00:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Vipinhari || talk 09:40, 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.