Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 January 18 January >

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. The WP:BLP1E arguments are the most persuasive and a significant portion of the article could be considered unnecessary and harmful for a general purpose encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chanty Binx[edit]

Chanty Binx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP sourced only to a negative Huffington Post opinion column. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Lack of sources in article is not a reasonable argument for deletion. Highly famous and influential feminist. Alex (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick Google search revealed many more reliable sources. I am not sure if WP:BEFORE has been done. sst✈ 23:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which? A Google News search finds virtually nothing - three of them are nothing but user comments on otherwise-entirely-unrelated articles which show up in the search. There are a number of random blogs which pop up in a regular Google search, but those aren't suitable sources for biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The subject has received news coverage only for one event; qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. Upon source searches, the subject also does not appear to meet WP:BASIC at this time. North America1000 00:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the continued criticism/harassment this person received not sustained coverage? How's this article on Vice? What about this? sst✈ 05:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are those brief mentions sufficient to write a biography of Binx, something more than the tiny and highly-slanted stub we have now? Can those sources allow us to expand the article beyond "Binx made some people mad, and those people harassed her"? If not, that's not a biography and it should probably be merged and redirected. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Vice article only provideds a passing mention about the subject. North America1000 06:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep – Struck my !vote above. Just meets WP:BASIC per sources available, and the subject has received coverage for her rant and the subsequent harassment she received afterward, so not a BLP1E situation. North America1000 06:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further consideration, maybe not. Struck my !vote above. North America1000 03:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The HuffPost link is a textbook example of a opinion blog, not a news story, and all statements sourced to it must be attributed to the writer. It cannot be used as a source for facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) These are WP:SURMOUNTABLE concerns. The most important thing is that notability is established, not whether the text in the sources can be mentioned in the article. Do you want me to 5x expand this article and nominate this for DYK? sst✈ 05:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that results in a well-sourced biographical article, absolutely, and you'll deserve a barnstar or two to boot. If there are sources you've found which can give us an actual biography rather than a throwaway line, kudos. I have not seen any sources that would allow us to write her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now expanded the article to more than 2000 characters of prose, and the requirement for DYK is 1500. An article by The Daily Dot + an article by Jezebel + a piece by a HuffPost writer is enough significant coverage for this to meet WP:GNG. Also, the incident at the University of Toronto plus the harassment and threats she has received means that this is a WP:BLP2E. sst✈ 12:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First and foremost, as explicitly stated at WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". Those sources can still support the subject's notability (which I'll get to), but we need more than notability to have an article -- we need verifiability, reliable sources, and content that can pass our BLP policies. As the three sources we have so far are blogs, we have no reliable sources for this BLP. That's a dealbreaker up front. Moving on nonetheless... We have three sources. One is a HuffPo opinion piece that, while it can help to establish notability, is only actually reliable for the opinions of its author, not the facts it contains (especially when talking about a BLP -- and especially a BLP in this context). It's also the only source cited that even mentions the name "Chanty Binx". We can tell the other articles are about her because what they're really about is this one video and the way people in the Internet responded to her. For example, the Daily Dot piece, which relies on exclusively on lousy sources for this story, is all about how people make fun of her on the Internet. So we can say that she was harassed, but how could we use that to build a good encyclopedia article without it turning into a list of bad things people have said about her? Jezebel tells the same story, and includes things like quoted YouTube comments. We have a video, what transpired in the video, nasty things the Internet said, the fact that some recognizable blogs picked up on those nasty things and on the video, and the opinions of the bloggers themselves. Nowhere is there sufficient content to build a biography, even if we could rely on blogs for material. You could talk about how many WP:GHITS there are, but there's a reason that's not a valid argument at AfD -- ghits don't always mean reliable sources (especially, I would argue, in the case of Internet memes). The vast majority of those hits are in the chan universe, the MRA universe, or social media. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Feminists and feminism clearly fall within the category of "gender-related disputes broadly construed" from which the nominator is banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#NorthBySouthBaranof_topic-banned
I suggest a procedural close and renomination (if a non-topic-banned editor is so motivated.) Great Go-Buster! (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt that this is in fact a gender-related controversy in the sense of Gamergate, but if it makes editors more comfortable, I'd be happy to replace NbSB as the nominator. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very, very thin coverage of a single event, primarily of interest only to those who wish to harass or demonize the subject. I find @Rhododendrites:' arguments convincing. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only sources I am seeing are this and the VICE piece above which has two sentences. Jezebel is part of the Gawker network and is not anything like an RS. I would not object to keeping if even one more source were found. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – just because a person received mostly negative coverage does not mean that it is not automatically non-notable. Indeed Rhododendrites also admitted that the sources provided can establish notability. If the problem is with my writing, the correct procedure is to WP:TNT it, not to delete it. I admit that my experience with BLPs is fairly limited. sst✈ 01:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Daily Dot is generally considered reliable per discussions on WP:RSN. The HuffPost source is acceptable per WP:BLPSPS: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I see Jezebel being used on multiple BLPs related to feminism. sst✈ 01:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "and each time she responded by telling the attendees to "shut the fuck up"" – this part does not require inline citations, per WP:FILMPLOT. The HuffPost source can safely be removed. sst✈ 01:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • All other uses of the HuffPost source, except the last paragraph, can also be safely removed as these have been backed by other sources. sst✈ 01:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SSTflyer: Yes, Rhododendrites made a distinction that a source like Huffington Post can support notability, but isn't a reliable source for the purpose of a BLP. That they can establish notability doesn't mean that they do. But you've obviously sidestepped the entire substance of my point by highlighting only that part. Why should there be an exception to the explicit policy of not using blogs as the basis for a BLP? The point is that we don't even need to talk about notability because this article can't get past verifiability and BLP. Those are not WP:NEWSBLOGs. I would dare you to take them to WP:RSN and make the case that these sources are reliable for a BLP, let alone that they should serve as the sole basis for the BLP. Also, that you're reaching way over into WP:FILMPLOT should signal that something is amiss. This is about a person, not about a film. Generally speaking, a film's plot is not subject to WP:BLP and there is a presumption that the film's plot is part of the subject -- it is not the case that a video is presumed the subject of a biography. If you're treating it like a film, it's the video that's the subject, and you still have no reliable secondary sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable agitator/activist covered multiple sources. Easily passes notability criteria. --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DHeyward: Which sources? And please keep in mind that it appears most of the interest in this topic is coming from MRAs. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "most of the interest in this topic is coming from MRAs" is obviously not a valid reason for deletion. sst✈ 02:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SINGLEEVENT –– Lid(Talk) 10:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lid and Sammy1339. This does seem headed to being written more like an article from ED then Wikipedia! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 17:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the coverage is about, or stems from, that one incident (BLP1E) and WP:AVOIDVICTIM is very relevant here. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty clear WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is by no means an actual biography of a notable person. It is a classic BLP1E and attempts to argue that the original rant and the criticism of it are two events are clearly incorrect. The mocking nature of most of the coverage of her means that the article is certain to be problematic on BLP policy grounds unless the article is deleted. This is a person's life that we are talking about. Let's do no harm. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic WP:BLP1E with a dash of WP:ATTACK. Someone protested during a lecture at a uni! They said bad words when heckled! Something like that probably happens every week at major universities so it fails WP:N as well because I don't see any secondary sources that have commented on the significance of the protest or the reaction. Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 03:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australians in Lebanon[edit]

Australians in Lebanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is not clear why this group of people is notable enough to have their own article. Two sources are provided, both of which just mention Australian citizens living in Lebanon, but there is no significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty much no expansion since 2011 when it was created. No implication of notability. Could be included in other articles very easily. Wugapodes (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom . Not notable lacks WP:SIGCOV. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  06:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nom's rationale. Simply not enough coverage to show that this particular group is significant enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Onel5969 TT me 13:10, 24 January 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) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie Crisp[edit]

Cookie Crisp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has had no visible verifiable references from reliable sources and no claim to meet WP:GNG for over ten years. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability does not go away after 10 years. This is a well known Breakfast cereal. Seasider91 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that the product is well known or tasty, just that it deserves an article. :)   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – If not independently notable, could be merged into List of breakfast cereals. North America1000 22:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:CITE. No references to support popularity for a stand alone article. It's already listed in the General Mills article. Without references it's akin to accepting a page for a Youtube video just based on view count hits. Blue Riband► 22:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fly SDK[edit]

Fly SDK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't verify that this is WP:NOTABLE. It exists, yes. Has been tagged for notability for 8 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing suggests better satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software library article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing but trivial mentions on Books and Scholar, nothing on the other search engines. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Onel5969 TT me 13:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamielee McPherson[edit]

Jamielee McPherson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. under G5 and G11. I will protect against re-creation also. If any other variants appear, please let me know. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Free Flights Italy[edit]

Free Flights Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Adam9007 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Nearly all results on the above links are only there because of similar wording, e.g. "free flights to Italy". --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at this after an IP had removed a speedy tag, and couldn't work out what this organisation did. I've now looked at their website, and I'm not much wiser. It looks rather like a politically motivated outfit, but where the free flights come in, I am not sure. It was speedied as Free Flights (to) Italy on Dec 29th 2015 (and protected) by @DGG:, but I don't know his reason for protecting - possibly recreated from other titles. The absence of reliable independent sources suggests promo to me. Peridon (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he deleted it as Free Flights to Italy after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Flights to Italy. The original author was Bianbum, who is indeffed for socking. There is a good chance, therefore, that the current author is a sock and G5 could apply. There looks to be quite a bit of COI involved, too. Peridon (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The system thinks the IP who removed the speedy tag is the creator (I think?). I saw that but decided to take it here instead because I wasn't sure about this article's eligibility for A7. Adam9007 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good choice IMO. As I read it, A7 probably is available, but I think a decision from here would be better. G4 (re-creation after discussion) I think is out, as I read it as being a speedy deletion per se rather than a closed as delete discussion result. DGG will know the answer to that. G5 is on the cards, but that can be coupled with lack of notability here anyway. Peridon (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Non-notable, promotional and a disruptive recreation of a recently deleted article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:47, 17 January 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 DGG, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Stamper[edit]

Kristen Stamper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Weakly sourced BLP. Another creation of recurring vandal HipHopVisionary. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HipHopVisionary for details. SummerPhDv2.0 17:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - A closer look shows edits by other users are not substantial (tagging for notability, adding categories and such). I've tagged it for a CSD:G4. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete My searches produced "This girl wants to be the world’s first gypsy supermodel"

April 23, 2014 [1] a couple of other papers had the same story. Also appeared in My Big Fat American Gypsy Wedding here:[2]. We don't have articles on girl wants to be the world's first.... whatever. Ambition is good, but some evidence of achievement is needed, and it's not here for this wannabe model.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 17 January 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 with Talossa. Hermione is a dude's suggestions are a good place to start. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talossan language[edit]

Talossan language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Talossan is the conlang associated with the Kingdom of Talossa, a micronation. It has not been noted in any academic or journalistic sources except for a single Wired article, which dedicates one paragraph to it in a much larger piece about Talossa and its owners, and an entry in Glottolog which only seems to note its existence. A general Google search only turns up websites operated by Talossa hobbyists, wikis, fora, mirrors, and so on. For these reasons, I think it is safe to say that this language is WP:NN despite over a decade of exposure on Wikipedia. I should also note that there have been two previous nominations for deletion, and in both cases the keep votes were based entirely on unverifiable claims regarding Talossan's immense popularity in the conlanging community (which goes against WP:V) and the argument that the number of Google hits it garnered proves its inherent notability (see WP:GNUM for why this is a poor argument). Hermione is a dude (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Talossa - Only the parts that are actually encyclopaedic should be on and reading that article, I can see it can easily fit into a section of another. Jackninja5 (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to Talossa. The topic has received some coverage, but not enough to qualify a standalone article. A merge will improve the merge target article per WP:PRESERVE. North America1000 04:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Talossa - I agree that there is not enough for a standalone article, but enough, if selectively merged, to improve the target article. Onel5969 TT me 13:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly could be merged? Almost all of the information found in this article is self-published.Hermione is a dude (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My proposal for a merger can be found in this sandbox page. Hermione is a dude (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Baghernejad[edit]

Hossein Baghernejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to meet WP:GNG or the criteria in WP:NACADEMICS because it does not provide independant, reliable sources about Hossein Baghernejad. The article claims that he was promoted to the rank of an honorary professor due to his "outstanding achievements regarding the implementation of scientific discoveries into practical use", quoting one criterium given in Paragraph 72 (1) Hessisches Hochschulgesetz. However, reliable sources have raised doubts that the title of honorary professor in Germany is always based on academic achievements [3], [4]. I could not find one publication, or independant, reliable source about his academic achievements. JimRenge (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of independent coverage. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Hossein Baghernejad does not meet any of the notability conditions for academics. The only scientific document by him the internet knows about is his PHD thesis. His academic status is "apl. Professor". The abbreviation stands for "außerplanmäßig" which roughly translates to "not regular". The conditions for this title vary between German states and have changed with time. But there is a common denominator: Apl. Prof. is generally ranked third after "ordentlicher Professor" (regular professor) and "Honorarprofessor" (honorary professor). It is not necessarily associated with a permanent position in university faculty. When working at a university the legal status of apl. professors is employee rather than civil servant like regular professors. The title is not awarded an explicit honour. But it is meant to be a recognition of the recipients work. (Source of all this: I work as scientific staff in a German university. If necessary, I can provide official documents,) Hossein Baghernejad is implicated in the recent upset in German wikipedia with regard to the supposed death of the author who used the account Andreas Parker, the self-acclaimed authors collective Psychologie-aktuell, a bunch of made-up identities and seventy-something books on psychology with content levied from wikipedia articles and published as book-on-demand. H. Baghernejad is listed in the "honorary board of trustees" of the Goldenberg Institute which is closely linked to Psychologie-aktuell. Scroll down to the bottom for the English translation. See the investigation page on German wikipedia for the details. ---<)kmk(>- (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 02:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Russell[edit]

Janice Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Russell doesn't appear to meet out notability guidelines. The refs provided do nothing to show significant coverage in reliable sources: citing the author's own work, website, linked in profile, official website and books for sale on Amazon. My own searches show nothing else significant that isn't just promotional in nature. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 13:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I ran a proquest news archives search on: "Janice Russell " + "Keeping Abreast" and got only 1 hit, for an article by Russell (HEALTH: I `fought' my breast cancer but was I really brave? Not all women choose to seek treatment after being diagnosed - but they are just as deserving of respect, says Janice Russell; Russell, Janice. The Daily Telegraph [London (UK)] 28 Apr 1998: 16.) Flag me to take another look if anyone finds significant, secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Freese[edit]

Caleb Freese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. A building won a local award and he did a mural on the building. Some local coverage. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Aboutmovies, Eastmain and Valfontis, who have all examined its notability before. This has been sitting with a notability tag for 8 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I ran his name through a Proquest news archive search, got several published obits for a much older man by this name, but one article on this Caleb Freese. The article, (Art review: Saturating subjectivity: [Sunrise Edition]; Libby, Brian. The Oregonian [Portland, Or] 28 July 2006: 37.) is only available as a 3 paragraph abstract. It is about a group art show and catalogue of that show, in Portland, Oregon, focused on "under-represented artists". I assume that Freese was in that group. It's not enough to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, or WP:ARTIST. Onel5969 TT me 13:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although his work has been identified as integral to the interior of the Providence North Portland Clinic, this is fundamentally WP:BLP1E given lack of other significant notability. Where mention of that work would belong would be within an article on Mahlum Architects since there's not a huge amount of other info on the PNPC. MA's claim to notability is far more supportable and there's a lot of information available online. ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 14:18, 24 January 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, CSD G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (Darcruz iyari) in violation of ban or block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Ogwu[edit]

Cyril Ogwu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability, perhaps WP:TOOSOON Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:21, 17 January 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. Malformed nomination with no participation. Please see WP:AFDHOW for how to set up a deletion request.  Sandstein  21:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the claims in this are true, it's probably notable. However, I was unable to verify them. Boleyn (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Boleyn, there seems to be something wrong with the syntax of this page; the relevant links are not appearing. Could you check to see what went wrong? Perhaps get an admin to delete this page and then try again? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gonnella[edit]

Paul Gonnella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable college football player, assistant coach, and minor college sports administrative functionary. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes and coaches per WP:NCOLLATH, and lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources to the satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cbl, all six listed above are WP:ROUTINE transactional coverage, exactly the sort of standard coverage generated by press releases upon the announcement of a hiring, firing or promotion of an assistant coach. We really need to take better care to require coverage that is actually significant and exceeds the threshold of ROUTINE. Wikipedia is not a coaching directory, and there is no presumption of notability for college coordinators and primary position coaches, let alone recruiting coordinators and consultants. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely disagree with your characterization of all six listed articles as being WP:ROUTINE that have no bearing in a notability analysis. Brief one- or two-sentence announcements of hirings/firings may be WP:ROUTINE, but detailed profiles written under the byline of a reporter for a major metropolitan newspaper are not. The assertion that the Rob Greefield's 1,500 character piece in The Boston Globe is WP:ROUTINE suggests that our understandings of WP:ROUTINE are quite dissimilar. That said, I'm not voting "Keep" here, in part based on Paul McDonald's WP:ADV concerns noted below, as well as the parenthetical point raised below by Ravenswing. As a legal practitioner, you know that bad facts make bad law, and because of this article's other weaknesses, this is not a good case in which to argue over the parameters of the efforts of deletionists to expand WP:ROUTINE to convert it into a broad inroad to attack sports biographies in general. For now, it is sufficient to note my disagreement and save a broader discussion for another day. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paulmcdonald: I suspect this article is autobiographical. The article is structured along the lines of a resume/CV, and the creator is an SPA account who has no edits before or after the creation of the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be correct. That could be a reason to delete under WP:POV as neutral point of view violation. If one shoe doesn't fit, the other likely does (not that failing WP:GNG isn't enough...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see any evidence of notability here, and Dirtlawyer's right: not only is this routine coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE, but most of those sources are based around press releases (several obviously around the same one), which likewise are explicitly debarred from use as evidence of notability. (I admit I'm also having a less-than-relevant "How great a coach can this guy be if he's had nine different employers in the last eight years?" moment.) Ravenswing 19:21, 17 January 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 Dorr Rebellion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Rebellion[edit]

Rhode Island Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-pro rugby league team with some local coverage Boleyn (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am bundling into this the more recent article Kodiak Rugby, LLC, which is just the parent company for the team, and has no separate notability claim.

Kodiak Rugby, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

--Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. I initially thought that you were nominating the Dorr Rebellion article. The current article indeed doesn't demonstrate notability; wait until it gets print or journal or retrospective news coverage, or wait until it begins to get routine appearances in major sports publications and/or broadcast media. Delete the parent company. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nyttend, is the redirect you propose to Dorr Rebellion? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Sorry that I wasn't clear; I figured that there weren't any alternative understandings. Nyttend (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, primarily on a procedural basis. I'll note that every team in the USA Rugby League has an article. Deleting one of those articles fails WP:COMMONSENSE. If these teams are non-notable (and, as a semi-pro league, that's likely), then they should be nominated as a group and kept or delted/redirected as such. If, however, they are, then they should all be kept, instead of being potentially picked off piecemeal (and then re-created because "oh, why's this one a redlink?"). That said, if it's felt that this should be a "canary in the coal mine" case and then the others redirected (which would be the correct non-keep result here), redirect to USA Rugby League#Teams. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be in favor of nominating the rest of them, unless one or more has gotten significantly more coverage than most have. "Canary in the coal mine" — i.e. this one is an indicator of danger? I'd be happy to treat this as a test case, with a followup AFD for all of the rest of them, saying basically "These all look to be in the same situation as the RI Rebellion, and AFD previously did X with it, so we ought to do X with all of these other ones, too". Nyttend (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, The Bushranger, as far as I can tell you're not offering an opinion on the co-nomination, Kodiak Rugby, LLC. Could you add a vote on that, or if you intended your procedural-keep-or-redirect vote to apply to both, could you state that overtly? Thanks. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did mean as a "test" to see if there was consensus for all from the one, yeah. As for Kodiak, I'm honestly not sure about that one. Since it apparently never played a game, I'd lean towards delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it best to take this as a test case and then look at bundling the others. There have been two valid redirect targets identified and no one considering this a notable team, so in this case a dab would be a good idea.

Rhode Island Rebellion may refer to:

Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say better to retarget it to the Dorr Rebellion and place a hatnote there, {{redirect|Rhode Island Rebellion|the rugby team|USA Rugby League#Teams}}; the Dorr Rebellion has been vastly more significant in the long run, so it should be considered the clear primary topic. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a fair comment, Nyttend, I change my suggestion to match yours. I would suggest redirect/delete for Kodiak Rugby, LLC. Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: If that redirect is done, then Kodiak should be a flat out delete; I think I overdescribed it when I said that it was a parent company for the team, looks like it was rather a parent company for an intended team that ended up getting replaced by the Rebellion. Redirecting it over to the league would mean that the league article would have to include a mention of this bit of relative trivia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Rhode Island Rebellion to Dorr Rebellion, (an enduringly significant event that searchers are extremely likely to be lookinging for under the search term "Rhode Island rebellion") Dorr should remain the primary, with a hatnote to whatever article that covers this team. I suspect it makes sense at this point to keep info about this team in an article about the league; new, semi-professional sports leagues have a tendency to be short-lived. If it proves notable, it can have an article named Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby), but the primary should be Door Rebellion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • note that I made a small edit to the page list because one of the players was linked to a character in a TV series. There are no bluelinked players on the team.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical School’s Report[edit]

Astronomical School’s Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal. As it currently stands, the article has 2 independent sources (references 4 and 5), both primary, indicating that the journal can be used to publish the results of doctoral theses. There is no indication how selective this listing is, but it looks like a rather complete list of journals published by Ukrainian institutions. All other "references" are from the journal itself. The last one (ref. 6) is actually rather interesting: the journal here calculated an "unofficial" impact factor. At 0.043, this is so low that it actually comes close to proving the absence of notability (insofar as the absence of something ever can be proven). In short, there are no independent sources discussing the journal, it is not listed in any selective databases, and it is hardly ever cited by any other journals. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:57, 17 January 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 School timetable. MBisanz talk 02:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TTh[edit]

TTh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable topic. Probably not notable enough for an article, but could be merged to another. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PROD was removed by an IP (who I think might be the article's creator). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was me, not sure why it did not record my name. Apologies for that. --DerCed (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 12:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 12:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — It is far from having notability, and really isn't something for a standalone encyclopaedia article. It might have a place as a concise paragraph or sub-section in some suitable article about a larger topic. --Murph9000 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: What if I integrate it into School timetable? DerCed (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School timetable (with the history preserved under the redirect). The article was merged to School timetable in this edit, and this is a plausible search term. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure if I am doing this right, but I've added a redirect at the top of the TTh page while keeping the deletion note and text below until this is resolved here. DerCed (talk) 21:46, 24 January 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 merged/redirected (action was done concurrent with AfD nomination); discussion on the content itself can be made at Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 10:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rapefugees not welcome[edit]

Rapefugees not welcome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While searching for sources reveals several mentions in reliable sources (mostly as a headline), closer inspections reveal that the mentions have more do to with the actual assaults and the protests in their aftermath, rather than about this specific phrase. In fact, the only coverage I could find which was explicitly about the slogan itself was from The Daily Stormer, which, to put it lightly, is probably an inappropriate source for this case. This might work better as a redirect to New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. There was no reason given in the nomination, but quite apart from that it's clearly a notable subject, which makes me think this was a frivolous nomination. Closing as per Speedy keep criteria #1 & #2. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madhesh[edit]

Madhesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Raymond.chy1 (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC) This is a duplicate page of Terai[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) –Davey2010Talk 21:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of the two weighty things[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hadith of the two weighty things (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The simple reason is that this fails GNG. I would like to put this in quotes for emphasis. There are ZERO reliable sources that discuss this IN DEPTH. Yes there may be a couple of passing mentions but no reliable sources exist which deal with this in depth. therefore it fails gng and should be removed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  08:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  08:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This passes the WP:GNG, as explained in the first AFD. AFD is still not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @FreeatlastChitchat: I thought you are aware of Muslim Hadiths and their notability. This is a nonsense AfD! Please find the other way to solve the problem.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the most famous hadith for both Shia and Sunni. There are many sources that reference this. Look at Google books. The article needs improvement not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheehinfo (talk • contribs) 11:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One the of the most reputable Islamic Hadith on the interpretation of which Shia and Sunni dispute. The nomination seemed very odd to me. It shows that the nominator made zero effort to check whether the article is notable or not. See the sources supporting the notability ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and etc. Did the nominator relly searched for it?) Mhhossein (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep likely as this seems acceptable and may need further familiar attention. Notifying 1st AfD nominator MezzoMezzo. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 01:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Gothenburg pub shooting[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2015 Gothenburg pub shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Textbook WP:NOTNEWS. This is literally a random local crime, and that's it. There's no substantial coverage whatsoever. International news picks up just about anything these days. The previous AfD seemed to indicate that because it was picked up as a story on the same day by international outlets, it met notability simply for that reason. However, that coverage began and ceased with one story, which seems to indicate that the temporary nature of the coverage was well within the news cycle and did not reach a level of significance high enough to meet "notability is not temporary". MSJapan (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is untrue that "There's no substantial coverage whatsoever." I had little difficulty locating in-depth coverage and analysis from Public Radio International and The Guardian. There was probably more. Nor did coverage end the day after the crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous AFD was just 3 months ago. Quite a reasonable conversation and a clear consensus to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. This was a highly publicized event and is notable. The nominator seem to indicate the reasoning of media brought it up, but hey they bring everything up these days. that is not a reasoning for deletion. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per WP:NOTNEWS. A Google search has shown up basically no references any later than about a week after the shooting occurred, which, as the nominator says, is textbook NOTNEWS. It has no lasting notability. NOTTEMPORARY does not apply because the event was never notable (i.e. achieved enduring notability) to be begin with. Aspirex (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"basically no references any later than about a week after the shooting occurred" is simply false. If you found this, you were not doing a proper search. For example, the Gothenberg shooting was widely rehearsed in coverage of the October 2015 Trollhättan school attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A personal opinion on notability does not trump WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Simply because you think that the event never was notable does not change the fact that per sources and overall media attention etc it is notable. Especially per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources and media attention were routine coverage of a news event, ergo it was not notable per WP:NOTNEWS. This is not "personal opinion", it is a policy-based judgement. WP:NOTNEWS trumps WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Aspirex (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In fact, the crime has been the center of major public conversations in Sweden as the country begins to focus on the social conditions inside it's marginalized immigrant populations. It is a central political conversation as Sweden comes to grips with the impact of immigrntion on immigrants and on Swedish society. see: Sweden shooting puts focus on life in 'ghettoes without hope'; With a bystander one of the two men shot dead in Gothenburg, gang violence has made marginalised immigrant communities a matter for national debate from The Guardian here: [13], I have added substantive coverage form the Washington Post and The Guardian to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – but this incident should not WP:INHERIT notability just because it is connected with a wider political discussion about Immigration in Sweden or Gang violence in Sweden. As I look through the references you've added to the article, there are a bunch of other news articles in the immediate event aftermath, and then three news reports covering other incidences of gang violence which make brief mentions to the pub shooting as part of their narrative – all of which is consistent with routine news coverage. I'm still not seeing any strong argument that this specific event meets WP:GNG. Aspirex (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aspirex, Your argument above was "up basically no references any later than about a week after the shooting occurred, which, as the nominator says, is textbook NOTNEWS. It has no lasting notability. NOTTEMPORARY does not apply because the event was never notable (i.e. achieved enduring notability) to be begin with." Every article I added shows that the event was discussed - often in some depth - months after it occurred. This fulfills your original standard of judging notability. Now, apparently on grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT you make a different set of demands. It because, as you put it, "because it is connected with a wider political discussion about Immigration in Sweden or Gang violence in Sweden" that the event is notable. And also because the original event garnered something far beyond "routine news coverage" It was covered not merely in wire service stores picked up worldwide , but in reported stores in newspapers far from Sweden. The coverage was at the time and has continued to be significant, reliable, in-depth, and international. The press has not treated this in a manner that can be objective described as "routine news coverage", your inaccurate description.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said, you added only three references which came months after the incident, and all three were articles about other violent incidents which made passing references to the Gothenburg pub shooting – definitely neither significant nor in-depth. Every other reference on that page was part of the 24-hour news cycle in the aftermath: whether that be a straight-forward description of the event in a local newspaper or a sensationalised editorial in a foreign one, it's still just routine news coverage. Aspirex (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sometimes it is better too just leave a discussion as it is. We can not all agree. You think one way, another person thinks another way. It is up to the closing admin to decide which "side" has been giving the strongest arguments. To argue back and forth is pointless as the AfD is not built around POV pushing in either direction. BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that This shooting marks the first time an innocent bystander has been killed by criminal gang violence in Sweden.[www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/20/gothenburg-shooting-sweden-ghettoes-gangs-varvadersligan-klas-friberg]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Expansion I have expanded the article a little. Plenty of reliable sources exist. (Grumble alert) Expanding articles, or, at least, looking to see if material to properly write a good article is a better use of precious editing time than repeating AFD discussions that closes with a consensus less than 3 months ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - your "impact" section is all about anti-immigration statements made in relation to the IKEA attack over six months later, because passing mentions of this incident are in those articles. However, the quotes you are using do not pertain to this incident, which means you are trying to draw a conclusion for the reader that is false. Secondly, as this article states that the perpetrators of this incident are unknown, claiming that they are immigrants committing crimes later in the article makes no sense, because it was already established that the perpetrators are unknown. It is precisely the lack of substantive information that makes this article a candidate for deletion, and expanding it with unrelated statements does not suddenly address that issue.MSJapan (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This crime is significant bcause 1.) it is described as the first time an innocent bystander was killed in a drug gang shootout; 2.) Drug gang shootouts are usually confined to gang members and - in Sweden - take place within immigrant enclaves, but in this case 8 bystanders were wounded and hospitalized; 3.) the location and death/injuries to bystanders were unusual enough to garner massive international coverage; 4.) the incident was unusual enough to garner ongoing coverage of this crime as an example of what feels to Swedish observers as a sudden and threatening upsurge of violent crime in a country where shootings were very rare until very recently, and all Swedish conversation on the topic is about the immigrant gangs that run drugs, weapons, and some highly taxed products (liquor, tobacco) into Malmo and Goteborg - then fight over turf; about whether the rise of violent crime will cause people to attack immigrants; and about what changes should be made on immigration policy. I am sorry that YOUDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to simply dismiss every counter-argument as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, there's not a lot point engaging you in conversation. Aspirex (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context to provide perspective on the discussion around this shooting, From the Washington Post, in a story that ran 5 months after this shooting: "Sweden, a country that has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe but is also currently facing a spate of high-profile attacks.... In the most shocking attack, the industrial port city of Gothenburg was terrorized in March when two masked gunmen entered a bar and sprayed a crowd with bullets during a soccer game. Two men — one reportedly tied to a local gang — were killed in the shootout and at least 10 other people were injured.

“Sweden has been shocked by the barbarity and indiscriminate nature of the Gothenburg shootings,” the Guardian reported. “The tragedy has also shone a spotlight on a hidden aspect of Swedish society that reads like the subplot of a Stieg Larsson novel, in which poverty, racism and segregation are driving young men from immigrant backgrounds into gangs and gun crime,” the Guardian added.

"Although the incidents are each different — and much about the Ikea stabbings, in particular, remains unclear — the combined effect has been to set the normally reserved Nordic country on edge.

"Immigration, in particular, has become a touchy subject in Sweden, a country that has long prided itself on its tolerance. Germany, France and Sweden have combined to accept a majority of the asylum-seekers flooding into Europe from Africa and the Middle East.

"This rise in asylum-seekers has spurred a backlash in Sweden. Last year, the far-right Sweden Democrats party became the third-largest in parliament after pushing for a crackdown on crime and immigration." link:[14] The Guardian ran an analysis shortly after the shooting: [15].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've read your references; simply restating large sections of them isn't contributing to this discussion. In any case, all you're describing is how to use the Gothenburg shooting page as a WP:COATRACK for a much wider discussion about the links between immigration and crime rates. Strip back all of that peripheral information, and you're still left with an incident which on its own merits as a stand-alone incident fails WP:GNG. Aspirex (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, enough is enough. You both need to drop the stick and let this AfD run its course. There is no point in trying to convince each other that the other is right. But this does not fail WP:GNG per current WP:GNG standards in my opinion. Also notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY as stated above. BabbaQ (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've already said that. Suggest you drop your own stick as well. Aspirex (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that : This shooting marks the first time an innocent bystander has been killed by criminal gang violence in Sweden. Here: [16], The Guardian.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes GNG with multiple sources and sustained coverage over time. Is also significant due to the rarity of such events in Sweden, and because of its "first" status pointed out by User:E.M.Gregory. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG, well-sourced, well-covered and also very significant. I can see why people would say delete this but it is a very rare instance in Sweden, not that all shootings at Swedish pubs deserve their own pages but still, lots of information. Jackninja5 (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I understand the arguments of WP:NOTNEWS, but this appears to go beyond that, meeting WP:GNG and is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Onel5969 TT me 13:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like there's just enough lasting coverage to get around WP:NOTNEWS, and the "first" that E.M.Gregory picked up on shows this is one that's likely to be brought up repeatedly moving forward. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Era Broadcasting Service International[edit]

Christian Era Broadcasting Service International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is also unreferenced. Sixth of March 14:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And advise Nom that an unsourced article on a Broadcast network that claims to be active deserves a careful WP:BEFORE. I ran a news search, and instantly found sources. Will add a couple of them to the article now. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a little sourcing, but neither the complexity of what this wealthy and powerful church-owned broadcaster owns and operates, or the precise nature of its relationship with Eagle Broadcasting Corporation is at all clear to me. For editors looking at this, coverage - and there is a daunting amount of it - can be located by searching for Iglesia ni Cristo + keyowrds like television, broadcasting, or the names of individual channels, programs, broadcasters, etc. The article awaits a knowledgeable editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, but the network does not own multiple stations; it only owns a radio station and a TV station, and their reach is only limited to Metro Manila and nearby areas. Sixth of March 00:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:GNG. my own search finds only a few mentions but nothing in depth. LibStar (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same thoughts as nom and LibStar. 121.54.54.168 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Iglesia ni Cristo#Evangelism with template:R with possibilities  [17] suggests that there are other search terms, but with too much of this article lacking in inline citations, this is a problem for the content contributors to figure out and rehabilitate this article, which I hope they do.  None of the delete arguments stand.  The initial argument that the topic fails WP:V has been alleviated, and the subsequent claim that this article can be deleted under GNG fails our policies and guidelines, such as where WP:N says that deletion for a topic with unclear notability should be a last resort.  And where WP:Deletion policy says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  Editing specifically includes a redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per E.M.Gregory's expansion and addition of sources from Philippines News Agency, The Manila Times, and Filipino Reporter to the article. Cunard (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with the new sources this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Kamennoy[edit]

Sergey Kamennoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to have met WP:ARTIST. Little to no significant coverage in reliable sources to mee WP:GNG. —UY Scuti Talk 09:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 09:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 09:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 09:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I Do not have time to look at it now, but if the listed credentials can be confirmed by independent sources (in particular, that he had personal exhibitios at Kokoschka and Schiele Museums, and his work is in permanent collections of the state Museums of Art in Kiev, Kharkiv, and Novosibirsk), he is definitely notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the Kokoschka and Schiele Museums are very small museums, and a solo show there would not suffice to establish the notability of the subject. The Kokoschka Museum is the de:Kokoschka-Haus in Pöchlarn, Austria, the Egon-Schiele-Museum is Schiele's birthhouse in Tulln, Austria. I've not been able to find anything about the Grenier à Sel, Honfleur as an art space. Gallery Brunstingerhof is a defunct gallery in the Netherlands that does nothing to establish notability either. I've been unable to verify that Kamennoy's work is in the The Kharkiv Art Museum or the Poltava Art Museum etc. I would have suggested to move it back to userspace if User:Ulitina hadn't stopped editing in 2007, after creating this article.Mduvekot (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kamberlly[edit]

Kim Kamberlly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a Brazilian actress. The biography does not seem to meet WP:ENT. The article was deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese per lack of notability. The only "sources" are IMDB (anyone can edit the source) and her Twitter account. Bilhauano (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned, no better sourcing and not yet satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even the weak source of imdb does not indicate they pass WP:NACTOR, with no significant roles, and searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WatchTime[edit]

WatchTime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little to no notability; one self-citation and another to homepage of a Flash site. Fails WP:GNG. Brianhe (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Their "advertise with us" web page claims that they have 600K "readers" and 75K subscribers. They also list a number of awards, such as the Folio FAME award ("Best Expo • WatchTime Magazine – Inside Basel & Geneva. http://www.foliomag.com/2014/2014-fame-awards-winner-announced/] and an Eddy award from the same organization for "Consumer Interest/Hobbyist" magazine. [18] No idea how important these are. However, held in only 7 US/Canada libraries. I don't find any sources. Although it gives bona fides for the publisher, I don't find much about it either. The publisher's web site is so bad G-translate can't translate it. In any case, unless we can find that this is THE key watch magazine in the US, I can't see keeping the article. LaMona (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  08:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  08:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up variations of magazine webpage, blogs, and other non-useable sites.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 22 January 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 Pakistan Super League. North America1000 01:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pakistan Super League[edit]

2017 Pakistan Super League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too early to start as even previous season didn't started. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The 2016 series hasn't yet started, and nothing's confirmed for a follow-up season just yet. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015Let It Go  15:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015Let It Go  15:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015Let It Go  15:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, agree with the redirect. Go for that instead. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I would redirect to the Pakistan Super League Matt294069 is coming 03:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign involvement in the Gaza War (2008–09)[edit]

Foreign involvement in the Gaza War (2008–09) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is WP:SYNTH as effectively no foreign party was actively involved in the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict, except political and other support. The word "involvement" doesn't even appear in the text except in the lead name. GreyShark (dibra) 06:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) (edits) 07:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) (edits) 07:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (top/bottom) (edits) 07:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, how is 'foreign' defined in this context? The main foreign involvement in Gaza during the war was the Israeli military. --Soman (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page looks like a POV fork to Gaza War (2008–09). Whatever of value should be moved to Gaza War, but the info seem to be already there. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with GreyShark and User:My very best wishes; there was no actual foreign involvement in this brief military confrontation. Marerial in this POV fork is already contained in the long article on this small "war".E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Pan Tae[edit]

Fan Pan Tae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This would've easily been PRODable material if not that there may be better Thai coverage so here we are at AfD; my searches simply found nothing better than this, this, this and this which simply still questions this article's notability. It's also worth noting the Thai Wiki has nothing better at all and it's also worth noting this article was only recently expanded in April 2013 but never have any solid sources been added. If anyone is also interested, this actually started like this in November 2005, further emphasizing how this article has never seemed notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
– (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: There should no doubt regarding the subject's notability; it's been running for over a decade, and has twice won the Asian Television Award, as well as multiple Mekhala and Golden Television Awards for best game show. The programme was at its peak of popularity over a decade ago, so sources may not be easily available online. From a quick Google search, there's this 2003 Manager article that covers the programme's contribution to Phanya Nirunkul's rise as one of Thailand's top media personalities, and this Bangkok Post article from 2012, which gives a good overview of the programme's history. However, the article is indeed badly written, and could do with a complete rewriting from scratch. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From Thairath (Thailand No.1 newspaper) tag system [19] I can count 17 news articles about the show during the period 2012-2013 when the show returned to TV screen. I think their tag system is not so reliable and miss later articles (but pickup soccer fan articles instead) while the first stint of TV show during 2001-2008 maybe beyond Thairath web coverage (only appeared in newspaper form). Daily News (Thailand No.2 newspaper) tag system [20] shows 5 news article from 2014 (again unreliable tag system because it picks up none before or after that year). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the show's official Facebook page [21] found that the show only produced some episodes in 2015 showing on holiday occasions (6 April, 13 April, 1 May, 26-27 September, 5-6 December), so there won't much news coverage in 2015. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America1000 02:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Vladykovskii[edit]

Igor Vladykovskii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie's Brother[edit]

Cassie's Brother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual song release with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Mikeblas (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  08:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or redirect to Southern Rock Opera, as is suggested at WP:NSONG. Certainly not notable enough for it's own article - didn't chart, no significant coverage out there that I can find, which perhaps explains why it's remained unsourced for over 10 years! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with the Southern Rock Opera album article. I see no articles about this song per se. Jmatazzoni (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, as shown by the sources presented by Cunard. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Freed[edit]

Wes Freed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unreferenced biography of a living person. Non-notable individual with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Mikeblas (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  08:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  08:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Humes, Pete (2005-09-09). "Renaissance Man - Freed's Odd World Races Into Clear View". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.

      The article notes:

      In Wes Freed's world, possums drink moonshine by the gallon.

      ...

      For years, the Richmond artist left his mark on album covers, concert posters and gallery walls. Tomorrow, Freed's artwork debuts on a different kind of canvas: Dave Blaney's No. 07 Chevrolet in the Chevy Rock & Roll 400.

      It might be hard to spot going a hundred miles an hour at the Richmond International Raceway, but Blaney's Monte Carlo will feature Freed's art for the band Drive-By Truckers. The logo (along with decals for team sponsor Jack Daniel's) is featured on the hood, the trunk and both side panels.

      Besides his visual art, Freed is probably best known for his now-defunct bands Mudd Helmet, Dirtball and The Shiners. (You also may recognize Freed from his TV commercials for Chesterfield Auto Parts. He's one of the slow-talking junkyard layabouts who encourage you to "bring a buck and a toolbox.")

      How did the big man in overalls go from singing "Hillbilly Soul" at Alley Katz to doodling on a multimillion-dollar stock car?

      "It was just one of those times when all the stars aligned," said the artist's wife, Jyl.

      The article further notes:

      From then on, every time the Truckers played Richmond, they stayed at the Freed house. Even as the group gained national and international fame, it found time to play gigs in Richmond.

      Before releasing their breakthrough album, 2002's "Southern Rock Opera," the Drive-By Truckers asked Freed to do the cover art. In addition to posters, T-shirts and stickers, he has provided the art for every album cover since.

    2. Allen, Mike (2015-07-24). "Drive-By Truckers artist Wes Freed rocks Floyd art center". The Roanoke Times. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.

      The article notes:

      Wes Freed’s art always had a gothic bent.

      In his youth, he said, “the paintings that I loved looking at were Bosch and Goya. I loved Edward Gorey. They don’t have a negative aspect to me. There’s kind of a peace and quietude to things that others might think of as unnerving.” On the other hand, confronted with images of manicured homes and white picket fences, “I’d rather see an overgrown hayfield with a dead tree in it.”

      That sensibility landed him a permanent gig as cover artist for enduring alternative Southern rock band Drive-By Truckers, starting with their much-praised 2001 concept album “Southern Rock Opera.”

      “Obviously I love it,” the 51-year-old Richmond artist said of his partnership with the Athens, Georgia, rockers. “It’s made it possible for this to be what I do as my day job as opposed to painting houses.”

      Freed’s first solo gallery show opened July 17 at the Jacksonville Center for the Arts in Floyd, showcasing whimsical, eerie and bawdy paintings he created for rock posters and rock albums, many for Drive-By Truckers, who will perform 6 p.m. Saturday at FloydFest.

    3. Ruggiero, Bob (2015-03-05). "Patterson Hood Touts Drive-By Truckers' New Unity". Houston Press. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.

      The article notes:

      But no band/artist relationship is tighter than the Drive-By Truckers and Wes Freed. Freed's paintings and drawings of almond-eyed southern vixens, gimme cap wearing rednecks, devils, weird pastoral scenes, and those creepy long-necked black birds have graced the majority of the Truckers album covers, as well as inside booklets, posters, and merchandise.

      Truckers co-founder/singer/guitarist Patterson Hood feels that Freed's best work is the cover of their most recent effort, last year's English Oceans. And it wasn't even a band original. It was a commissioned painting that Freed did for Barr Weissman (who did a documentary on the band, 2009's The Secret to a Happy Ending) of his three daughters.

      Hood also recalls that Freed has had some pretty strong opinions on previous records.

      "When we were doing what would become Brighter Than Creation's Dark, I gave Wes three different titles we were debating on. And he told me, 'I don't care what you call the record, but I'm doing the cover for Brighter Than Creation's Dark!'"

      Soon, a lot more people might also see Freed's work at merch tables in large arenas. For while the upcoming DBT show in Houston is a club gig, it's one of several scheduled during a much larger tour which has the Truckers opening for country superstar Eric Church in huge arenas.

    4. Rhines, Brad (2013-09-10). "Drive-By Painter: Wes Freed". Southern Glossary. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.

      The article notes:

      Over the years, the identity carved out by the band’s sound and songs has been illustrated, literally, by artist Wes Freed. The Richmond, Virginia-based artist has done the cover art for every DBT album since Southern Rock Opera, not to mention countless posters, t-shirts, stickers and stage sets. His distinctive style has become synonymous with DBT. Though formally trained as an artist, Freed’s work veers in the direction of folk art and outsider art, giving it a ragged-but-right quality that matches the spirit of the band.

      Freed knew the Drive-By Truckers in the Alabama Ass Whuppin’ days, but it’s one of the few albums to which he didn’t contribute. That’s remedied by this year’s reissue, which gets a new cover from Freed, a savvy move that further cements this early gem as a part of the DBT’s cohesive identity and musical legacy.

      On the occasion of the reissue, Southern Glossary called Freed at his Virginia home to talk about his work and his relationship with DBT. Freed’s accent is thick and his voice is gruff, but he was friendly and generous with his time. Our conversation was punctuated with long pauses and the occasional whining of a hound dog in the background as the artist reflected on how he got where he is today.

    5. Robbins, Brian (2011-08-31). "The Drive-By Truckers' Family Part I – Wes Freed". Relix. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.

      The article notes:

      Wes Freed

      Artist, musician, hell – an actor, even. There’s nothing that Wes Freed has done or created that hasn’t been just exactly true to Wes Freed.

      If you want to experience some of the music the Virginia native has made over the years, hunt up albums by Mudd Helmet, Dirt Ball, and The Shiners – or catch a gig by his current gig, the Mad Bats.

      ...

      The path to Freed’s world extends waaayyy back to the Shenandoah Valley of his childhood, detours through the halls of Richmond’s Virginia Commonwealth University, and runs deep into the shadows of Crow Holler, where whiskered, drunken, red-eyed skeletons beat the dog snot out of resonator guitars and buxom white-skinned zombie gals slip you one of those looks. That’s Wes Freed’s world – where the cars that sit alongside Willard’s Garage are old, big, and faster than hell; the music’s loud; and lonely’s even louder.

      And that’s where the art that represents the Drive-By Truckers to the outside world comes from.

      Freed and his wife Jyl live in Richmond, VA in a house chock full of his art which they share with their dogs, cats, a white squirrel named Skully, the occasional possum or two, and “a constant parade of foster babies” from the local SPCA.

    6. LaBate, Steve (2009-11-16). "The 25 Best Album Covers of the Decade (2000-2009): 15. Drive-By Truckers - Decoration Day. Cover Artist: [Wes Freed]". Paste. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.

      The article notes:

      Drive-By Truckers' go-to album-cover artist, Wes Freed (who used to play in a little-known but badass rock band called The Shiners, created this Southern Gothic masterpiece to go with DBT's gritty, punked-out and depraved roots-rock sound, and the feel is creepy-perfect. With an impressive body of work under his belt, Freed is fast becoming a Southern Ralph Steadman.

    7. Burger, Mark (2002-03-24). "Yuk! 'Thrillbillys' Is Flaky, Hilarious Trash". Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.

      The article notes:

      Jim Stramel's feature film The Thrillbillys is unabashed, unashamed trash - but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie.

      Quite the contrary. It's consistently entertaining and amusing, and it keeps its mind in the gutter from beginning to end. The film is a salute to the B-movie drive-in classics of yesteryear (i.e. Macon County Line, Walking Tall, Dirty Mary Crazy Larry) that depicted the rough-and-tumble, dog-eat-dog world of bank robbers, moonshiners and assorted lowlifes - before Burt Reynolds and Smokey and the Bandit (1977) put a warmer and fuzzier spin on those kinds of movies.

      There's nothing warm or fuzzy about Dodger Cole (Erin Snyder), a taciturn ex-con who's so tough that she is usually referred to in masculine terms. Having recently been paroled from prison, Dodger returns home to visit her addle-brained but lovable brother (Wes Freed). Not long after, a parcel of land behind their backwoods home is razed to make way for a convenience store, but no one stumbled across Grandma Cole's hidden moonshine still until it blew up.

      This is a passing mention that I'm not using to establish notability, but the article can be used to verify Wes Freed's acting in The Thrillbillys.
    8. Davis, Hays (2006-07-13). "The sinister tale of Truckers' rock - Band embraces Southern roots, twisted and all". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.

      The article notes:

      One of those early local supporters was Wes Freed, who handles the album artwork that has become so closely identified with the band. During the period when Wes and his wife Jyl were involved with the Capital City Barn Dance, they invited the Truckers to play. The connection proved rewarding for all.

      Upon entering the Freeds' home, Hood was hooked.

      "It was floor-to-ceiling filled with Wes's artwork," he said. "It has a very distinctive style and look. We were already writing 'Southern Rock Opera' by then. When we walked in the door [fellow frontman Mike] Cooley and I kind of immediately looked at each other and were just like, 'Wes has to illustrate 'Southern Rock Opera.'

    9. Brady, Linda East (2005-04-08). "Don't pass up music of Drive-By Truckers". Standard-Examiner. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.

      The article notes:

      The last three Truckers' CD covers have been drawn by artist Wes Freed. Working in various mediums, Freed also produces the comic book "Willard's Garage" and paints CD covers for other artists.

      With something of van Gogh's swirling brushwork and color sensibility, Freed's drawings are peopled by Dixie-fried witches, classic cars, otherworldly birds and haunts of every sort.

      "I love working with the Truckers. They're easy to work with," Freed said when asked about the collaboration. "They give me just enough direction and just enough freedom, and Lilla Hood (Patterson's sister and album art director alongside Chuck Hermes) brings everything together in a cohesive and artful way. I'm very lucky to be able to work for and with DBT and Lilla, because they are all very respectful of how I want the art presented ..."

    10. Netherland, Tom (2002-09-05). "Refreshingly Unpredictable - Alt.Country Umbrella Gives the Shiners A Lot of Flexibility". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.

      The article notes:

      "A No. 10 single on the hot new country charts is not part of our plan," says Wes Freed, co-lead singer with wife Jyl.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wes Freed to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The subject comfortably passes WP:BASIC per the sources presented above by Cunard. North America1000 01:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not sure it passes WP:GNG (some of the sources put forth by Cunard are blogs), but I agree there is enough to pass WP:BASIC. Onel5969 TT me 13:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Microphyll (disambiguation)[edit]

Microphyll (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A disambiguation with nothing to disambiguate, as all is covered at Microphyll. Deletion seems the best choice. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguation -related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  08:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Rising[edit]

Flight Rising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. All but 1 of the references are unreliable sources or were published by the developer (flightrising.com and kickstarter). Anarchyte 04:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no indication of notability. Melcous (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing to pass WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Of reliable sources there is this good one (already in article). The other sources in the article are not independent and so unsuitable for GNG. There's a blog claiming to have organized list of game's reviews: [22], but it does not look at all organized and looks like user reviews anyway. There's a couple reviews from sources not deemed reliable. Cannot locate any other sources. Developer/creator doesn't have an article, so nothing to merge/redirect. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as certainly questionable for better sourcing with better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 19 January 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 under G1 Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmendta Study Doc[edit]

Dharmendta Study Doc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not encyclopedic, more of a programming tutorial. No explanation on notability. Scientific Alan 2(What have I said?)(What have I done?) 03:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  08:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  08:28, 17 January 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. Nomination withdrawn, page was redirected. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte 03:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfroBasket 2017[edit]

AfroBasket 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references proving notability. Too soon for an article on this event, it seems. Anarchyte 03:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonora Luthander[edit]

Eleonora Luthander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR, this person has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of her. JMHamo (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes WP:AUTHOR. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 19:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick Google suggests this is legit, and at least arguably notable. I'd keep it. --Lockley (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't find a single non-primary non-passing-mention except this, which may not be an RS. She does seem to be a prolific literary author and I would suggest re-listing and asking for the folks at WP:SWEDEN to take a look. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That piece from Immi.se is certainly a reliable source, and it shows that IMMI, the Swedish Immigrant Institute, consider her notable. I've found other sources, see below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  03:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  03:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  03:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Most of Luthander's writings are in Serbian, not Swedish, so I think we should ask a Serb speaker for assistance, but it seems obvious that she is a notable poet in Serbia.
  • Keep. She was also featured several times in Serbian media too. Radio-Televizija Kruševac (her hometown), Avlija.me, portal for culture and literature, short mention in Danas, the major daily. There are statements that two of their poetry collections were included in the "Nobel library" of the Swedish Academy (not sure how much of achievement is that). In 2008 she received the Arsenije Čarnojević literary award, given to Serbian novelists living abroad (Radio Television of Serbia). No such user (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mightylite[edit]

Mightylite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of importance, no references. Quite hard to look for sources as there seems to be a lot of products with the same name. The original article was a bit more informative about who is involved in making this, but that information was lost in a cleanup of promotional text. It could possibly be this product but note the variant spelling on the product and the Pelican brand is not mentioned in our article so who knows. Also note that although the book starts off using the Mightylite spelling (same as our article), it changes halfway through to Mitylite matching the spelling on the product shown in the book. I am far from convinced it is the same product, but it might be, but even if it is, one souce is not enough to establish notability. SpinningSpark 17:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  03:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  03:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delte per nomination. No references or information to support that this gadget merits a stand alone page. Blue Riband► 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as mentioned, could be a conceivable article but still questionable at best. WP:TNT, SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 03:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan C. Hodson[edit]

Ryan C. Hodson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY. Nothing here claiming true notability. The sources used do not show notable coverage - he's the source on a passing quote in Best Life magazine, the Navallo source is a WP:SPS, he's not even mentioned on the two pages about the Rhode Island Rebellion that are linked to, and the remaining source is his own company. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no significant coverage of Hodson as an individual - doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  04:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015 It will rain  04:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Founder and CEO of a non-notable company. I suppose the title could be redirected to the rugby team his company founded, Kodiak Rugby, LLC, but that seems like a stretch. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Rich[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Doug Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This allegedly autobiographical BLP withstood a previous AfD nomination because the subject has received media attention for discovering a number of supernovae. Mr. Rich is clearly a talented amateur astronomer, but with all due respect to his work, it is not uncommon for amateur astronomers to discover transient phenomena (including supernovae) and to contribute to scientific research. As a result in this case, I don't feel that coverage by the general media is indicative of notability per WP:ANYBIO (and more generally WP:BIO). Astro4686 (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. The article in question has been significantly edited since my original nomination. It now establishes Mr. Rich's notability in terms of his contribution to astronomy rather than in the number of supernovae that he has discovered. Although the article needs work, the new changes have convinced me that Mr. Rich fulfills the notability criteria. Astro4686 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi Rubbish computer, thank you for your feedback. My response would be that I'm not convinced that it's necessarily notable for amateurs to discover supernovae. For example, in a previous AfD discussion, I did a very quick tabulation of some of the supernovae discovered by amateurs in 2015 alone, and the numbers show that it's actually fairly common for amateurs to discover supernovae (and, in some cases, a lot of them). Astro4686 (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mesh (band)[edit]

Mesh (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indie band, appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:BAND and indeed WP:HOLE. The only independent source for this article is side-line.com, which does not appear to be sufficient to establish notability - and even that appears to be churnalism. There's no evidence of significant independent coverage, and most of the article reads like a fan blog. The bands been going for nearly 25 years and appears to have achieved pretty much nothing beyond routine gigging. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Apparently a major label band, for at least some of their history - at least 1 or 2 major label albums. Have also had hits in Germany ([23], [24]). The band's popularity seems to be mainly in Germany, where most of the coverage also seems to come from, although there is a brief (and out of date) bio at Allmusic ([25]). --Michig (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that may be stretching the definition of "major" :-) Regardless, I see no evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources, and the business about charts and labels is only a ready-reckoner for the kind of band that's likely to have sufficient sources to meet WP:V and WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  12:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  12:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best for now as I see no better sourcing aside from what I found (a few links) with "Mesh Bristol England Mark Hockings synthpop" at News and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - amazingly, there are articles on this band on eight different Wikipedias and no reliable sources attached to any of them. I found a number of dedicated reviews of their various albums: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] as well as an interview with the band: [31], but I don't think any of these really qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources. In particular, their genre does not seem to be one of the ones that's relegated to underground scenes and only appears in blogs, so if they're a standout, there should be more coverage. They're allegedly famous in Germany, but it can't be verified in reliable sources. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On balance, I feel the subject is sufficiently significant for inclusion. The Allmusic bio, Terrorizer review, a few bits of German coverage, major label releases, and the sources confirming national chart placings are sufficient to have a reasonably sourced stub, but the content will need to be reduced to what is verifiable. --Michig (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AMG bios are not independent, they are often submitted by the band or its management. Are there any reviews in significant sources? Terrorizer is... non-wonderful. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michig remarks notable musician/band.The Cross Bearer (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While there is some coverage, it is all trivial, non-independent, or from less than stellar sources. Onel5969 TT me 13:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jibin[edit]

Jibin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claims to fame are winning two non-notable awards, including a 'Fame' award for collaborating with some local kids to make music (and winning 25,000 rupees, equivalent to 377 USD or 345 EURO). Smells like paid editing. Prod tag was disputed by creator/only contributor. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 03:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Artist has got All India Fame music Awards Fame music carry out International music awards in many countries and around 2000 artists from all over India took part in the contest which had about 60 rounds. And His Album Beat of Indian Youth got Limca Book of Records which is considered as a great Record in India similar to Guiness records . Also Former Indian President , Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam wrote lyrics for his album . He composed a regional theme song for AAM Admi party. Wiki crearly states the price money of any competition is not a matter . And also the Afd placer user accuses of 2 non notable awards - Here both awards are notable . Always :) (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft and userfy at best as the listed awards are simply not seemingly convincing and the best my searches found was only this, a few links here and there so hardy much for a considerably better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment India is a land of 125 crore people and the contest was open to all Indian's of all age groups. And its not my concern to convince a person who is unknown to music in India and those who dont knw the value of Limca Book of Records and the most Respected person in the world , APJ Abdul Kalam.

Always :) (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fame Music™ was founded in 2002 by Romy Hawatt renowned entrepreneur and C.E.O. of SAE Group. SAE is the world’s largest creative media educator with over 55 campuses in 27 countries and providing first class education and training in Audio engineering, 3D Animation, Multimedia, Game Design, Digital Filmmaking, and Music Production), and is postured to become the essential music industry platform bringing together artists, fans and the industry alike. [32] . SAE and AAT combinely conducted All India Fame music Awards .[33] AAT ACADEMY, SAE INDIA and SAE INTERNATIONAL host fame music, India's Biggest Online Music Competition in India. This competition was open to all music enthusiasts and composers. [34] Always :) (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - don't userfy since I have not found anything that strengthens the notability claims so it's not likely that this would become an article. The sources in the article are trivial mentions or primary sources; the links in the previous post don't show that the awards are in fact notable, much less major per WP:NMUSIC. --bonadea contributions talk 11:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/addition Appearing in a book of records does not confer notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fame award for collaborating with some local kids to make music This is a false and understatement- what does it meant by local kids ??? afd tag placer Are you insulting an artist ? Always :) (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Nontrivial notability is demonstrated. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment news link from the score magazine - 'Music news only' magazine and from CNN-IBN is introduced. Always :) (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article and numerous other recently created articles about non-notable people has been blocked for sockpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles are from self-made's in another Country. Perhaps Wikipedia India is a way to start this Article more concisely.CalabJessika (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep this page as Significant Coverage is seen . The New Indian Express., ibnlive.com., mathrubhumi.com , manoramaonline.com. etc are top and leading national newspapers and are reliable sources. More over Limca Book is considered a Big record in India. Astronomer145 (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2000–05[edit]

Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2000–05 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of veterans of World War I who died in 1999 which was deleted and the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of veterans of World War I who died in 2000, I'm listing all these as they all feel closer to a directory and against WP:CSC as this gets closer and closer to indiscriminate if we go further back in time. 2015 has 3, 2014 has 6, 2013 has 9, 2012 has 14, until we get to 35 for all of 2000-2005, etc., all of which on based on verifiable existence alone, not based on encyclopedic and topical relevance. How far back should these lists of veterans go? In theory, the first list would be "List of veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 1936" which I think everyone agrees would be absurd. Note that I am NOT including List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War which is different enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree for the reasons given by nominator. WP is not a directory, and these categories lack sources as a subject. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a great resource for people researching this subject, and doesn't hurt Wikipedia at all. Czolgolz (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looking at the dates, they are lists of men that died in their 80's (earlier years) and 90's (2013) which is not that old or remarkable. I suspect the lists are quite incomplete and note the Jan 1-Dec 31 date ranges are arbitrary. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rubbish computer's rationale: Wikipedia is not a directory of Spanish Civil War veterans. I can only imagine if someone starts to create yearly lists of the deaths of Russian, American or British Empire veterans of World War II . . . given the numbers involved -- millions of veterans, tens of thousands of yearly deaths as these vets hit their late 80s and 90s -- and the fact that the overwhelming majority of them are not notable per the general notability guidelines nor the specific notability guidelines applicable to military personnel and recipients of highest-level decorations, we should not even ponder the creation of veterans lists based on death and age. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing any type of justification/coverage for standalone lists on this topic. Canadian Paul 18:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 03:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bryant (author)[edit]

Sarah Bryant (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a science fiction author which does not indicate any notability. She has published eight novels (three of them listed here), which could be notable in itself, but a quick Google search shows only primary sources. This article was originally nominated for speedy deletion, but since it has been on here since 2006 that is not really appropriate. This is Paul (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as I'm the person who added the speedy deletion template. She makes no claims of notability (no 'bestsellers' or awards) on her online bios. Her books seem to have been published in the late 2000s, so online coverage should be far easier to find. However, I can only find a short (2009) review of her book, Sand Daughter, by Publishers Weekly. This isn't enough in itself to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Sionk (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to her Amazon page, her most recent book, Morningstar, was published on 1 October 2014. She also has eight titles listed on her website. I agree that should make for more coverage than it does, so we could conclude she fails WP:GNG. However, I suppose it all depends on volume of sales whether or not she is notable. This is Paul (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:CITE. Blue Riband► 22:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not currently better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 18 January 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sherman (LGBT rights advocate)[edit]

Michael Sherman (LGBT rights advocate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, actually an WP:AUTOBIO if you check the creator's username, with no strong or well-sourced claim of encyclopedic notability. His notability as an activist largely boils down to writing a few letters to municipal leaders in his own local area, which falls far short of the level of prominence it takes to satisfy our notability rules for activists, and the sourceability mostly boils down to local coverage and primary sources. There's one source here that's genuinely solid in terms of its ability to count toward WP:GNG, but it's a blurb, not a substantive piece, which actually verifies none of the content about his activism — the only thing in the article that source is being cited to support is a statement of the fact that the source exists. And a person doesn't pass GNG on the basis of just one GNG-eligible source, either. There's quite a bit of completely unsourced detail here of the type that we can't publish at all without sourcing for it, and there's a definite advertorial public relations tilt to some of the writing. As always, we are not a public relations platform on which a person with a conflict of interest gets to maintain a minimally sourced WP:POV-toned autobiography to promote their business or charitable endeavours — it takes much better sourcing, and much more substantive evidence of their notability extending beyond a single local area, before a person passes our inclusion rules. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not put the LGBT Rights Advocate with my name that was done by someone else a bot I think. When I did created this page original before a bot got at it, I had it as Michael Sherman FTM. Since there was already a Michael Sherman and that individual of course is not me, I created one that was me Michael Sherman FTM. So who ever attached the LGBT Rights Advocate did it themselves. I am a Transgender Advocate for the Trans Community. I am also trans myself so in a way I am a Trans Advocate too as I advocate for change for the trans community and those who need help, just because I don't have mush in the way of media and shit like that you think my page or I should say article should be deleted. Who are you to say what I have done and not done. I have so many people who I can get to validate the work I do. Mikeshermanftm (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete me fine, I will just re-create another one with better sources that can't be debated. You can't stop someone from trying to make a difference no matter how many sources someone provides. We all started out small and grow as time goes on. Give me a break folksMikeshermanftm (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment @Mikeshermanftm: Unfortunately the Wikipedia is not about giving people a break, it deals in facts. It is commendable that you are trying to make a difference in the world, and when your have and several national newspapers have written in-depth articles about you and what you are fighting for, then there will be sufficient sources to back up an article about you here. To put it bluntly and in non-Wikipedia terms: You are not "famous" enough for an article here. Yet. Carry on your good work and you will get noticed and someone is bound to write about you then. Btw, the attached (LGBT rights advocate) that someone did, was just to separate you from a football coach with the same name. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I may not be famous...but at least I am honest too. I know I am a NOBODY, but you don't know the kinda response I got from people who have looked up to me over the past 8 years who have struggled with their gender Identity and to see someone who may not be on tv or in national newspapers / magazines making a difference so things are easier for them. I've tried to get interviewed on tv and news here in canada, but like you said I am not famous. Why do I need to be famous to me an advocate. Wikipedia is just like everyone i've encountered. If you're not rich, famous or a SOMEBODY - they don't give a **** well you know what I do and so do all the people who look up to me or reach out to me for help. I advocate for those people!!!!!! I don't do this to be famous I do this to MAKE A DIFFERENCE in our society where WE the TRANS COMMUNITY are still fighting for our acceptance. I could have just hid away and not done all the work that I've done even though it may not be in the papers. I forgo a life of living stealth to make a difference and I just thought Wikipedia would be one place to help show the LITTLE GUYs can help and be a voice!Mikeshermanftm (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeshermanftm: On Wikipedia we have to be able to check everything that is in the articles, that is why we have to rely on other reliable media and report/edit what they write. Wikipedia is very much for "the little guy", but "little guys" who get noticed. My advice is that you use all the free social media available to you (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, whatever) and make your case. Go berserk there, make waves, make a difference! Make a huge difference!! And when you have done that, you will get your article in this encyclopedia (not platform). Many confuse the WP with social media, please don't, it is more like Encyclopædia Britannica when choosing what articles stays or not. And like you say, you don't need to be famous to be a advocate, well, you don't need to be in the Wikipedia to be a good advocate either. Best, w.carter-Talk 14:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, nobody in this discussion, least of all me, is questioning the value or the validity of what you do. But Wikipedia is not a public relations database or a social media platform where a person becomes entitled to start an article about themselves just because they exist, or a humanitarian award where a person gets an article just because they've done something heroic or admirable — we're an encyclopedia, on which all articles have to be compliant with our rules about writing tone, our rules about the use of referencing, our rules about what is or isn't includable, our rules about not starting an article about yourself, and on and so forth. This is not about you as a person — our inclusion rules have nothing to do with moral or ethical judgements about the goodness or badness of what a person does, and everything to do with whether or not a certain specific minimum level of media coverage has been attained by which we can properly verify an article's content.
Again, nobody's questioning the validity or the value of what you do, and nobody's suggesting that you stop doing it. But having a Wikipedia article is not an effective way to increase your public visibility. It isn't going to help you attract new admirers or fans or followers, because people aren't going to find it unless they've already heard of you, and are thus already looking for it.
And, in fact, having a Wikipedia article can actually have negative consequences that you may not fully realize — because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, there are a considerable number of anybodies out there who try to misuse us as a venue for attacking our article subjects. One extremely common tactic, when it comes to articles about transgender figures, is to flip their gender pronouns back to the "assigned at birth" gender — while we do have a rule against that, one of the consequences of our structure is that we don't actually have a mechanism to prevent a rule from being broken before it gets broken. The only control we have over ensuring that our rules are followed is for somebody else to notice an inappropriate edit, and revert or fix it, after it happens. Our model works very well on high-profile people whose articles generate enough traffic that inappropriate edits to their articles will get caught quickly — but below a certain level of public prominence, it falls flat on its face and an inappropriate edit can end up lingering in the article for weeks or even months because nobody's seeing it at all.
And that's really the key reason why our notability standards require a certain minimum level of preexisting fame before a person can have an article on here: it's not because anybody thinks that what you do is less valuable or important than what more famous people are doing, but because there's a level of preexisting prominence below which the potential traffic is not high enough to ensure that an attack edit will get seen or fixed as promptly as it needs to be. Below a certain level of preexisting fame, we cannot guarantee an adequate level of quality control to ensure that the article stays fair to the subject. We can't guarantee that nobody will ever edit your article to misgender you. We can't guarantee that some person who dislikes you will never try to insert your home address and phone number into the article in the hopes of getting total strangers to harass you. We can't even guarantee that nobody will ever try to overwrite the entire article with their own résumé or a recipe for raisin bread or a pornographic essay about Kaley Cuoco's breasts (and no, I didn't make any of those things up — those are all things that really have happened to Wikipedia articles.) Our only mechanism for preventing those kinds of things is the oversight of other editors — so below a certain level of potential traffic our mechanism just doesn't work anymore, and the only other thing we can do to protect you from that risk is to not have the article at all.
Again, having a Wikipedia article does not necessarily mean we approve of a person's work, and not having a Wikipedia article does not necessarily mean we disapprove of a person's work — inclusion or exclusion on here has nothing to do with anybody's opinions about you as a person. It has to do solely with whether there's enough reliable source coverage, and enough potential visitors to the article, that we can guarantee a satisfactory level of maintenance. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as appears to fail WP:GNG. I second Bearcat's points on this, in that having a Wikipedia article on oneself is not an expression of approval. Mikeshermanftm, what you are doing is admirable and I apologise if you are finding this discussion unpleasant. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet they notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:07, 25 January 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) 03:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2018 ATP World Tour[edit]

2018 ATP World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We just started the 2016 season and now we have someone creating the 2018 season (and 2017 season). Way too early for this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep, as there is very little point having two separate discussions on two articles that are identical apart from the future year. If the other article is kept, this one will be kept, too. If the other article is deleted, this one will be, too. Use Template:Afd footer (multiple) for future cases where multiple related articles are put up for deletion. Oh, and there is no point deleting either of these, as they are clearly notable. Schwede66 02:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I had thought about that and felt there was a huge difference between having an article that was 1 year in the future vs an article that was 2 years in the future. If the other is kept it has no bearing on this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:35, 19 January 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 Richard Rubin (writer). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 21:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Pierro[edit]

Antonio Pierro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no indication that this is a notable individual. As a preliminary matter, his name isn't listed at List of last surviving World War I veterans since he was just the world's oldest living WWI veteran for some time (no As of template so it's not clear how long), and the oldest American for a month. Here, the only references are a generic link to the GRG (which tells little), what seems to be a dead link to an old MSN page and the Boston Globe which is more of a WP:ROUTINE obituary than real evidence of notability. According to this link, he was the oldest WWI veteran from Massachusetts, and the last veteran of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive (based on what looks like another ROUTINE obituary reference) which is overall slicing it pretty thin in terms of notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 02:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 02:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge very limited details into the section of the Richard Rubin (writer) article that deals with Last of the Doughboys. Not notable on his own. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, obviously, per WP:NOPAGE. "On one of his trips, a bomb struck right in front of the horse, killing the horse and saved Tony's life. Tony had been using this horse and wagon for a while and had become attached to the horse, and it was quite disturbing to see this horse, who had become a companion, die. Tony’s love for horses was only seconded by the young lady Madelina whom he met, after the war, in one of the French towns close to where his unit was stationed. He would take her dancing many nights or talk for hours with the family. He would also bring his ration of cigarettes to her father." My god, is there no limit to this crap? EEng 09:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then Redirect to the Doughboys section of the Richard Rubin page. David in DC (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an appropriate supercentenarian page. The coverage that I see/can find for this individual indicates some measure of notability, but not the need for a stand-alone page. Canadian Paul 17:51, 22 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_January_17&oldid=1142622746"