Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 January 27 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. If anyone wants to merge any of this I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 19:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lederman[edit]

Ben Lederman (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)

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by another user without providing a reason. — Michael (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Michael (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and this looks promotional. Curro2 (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect: As a youth player, Lederman doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. The circumstances with La Masia, FIFA, etc, has significant coverage in independent RS (NYT,Marca, Sport, ESPN, etc). Given the number of players affected, it's the event rather than the players that have primary notability even though Lederman has the most press. For the moment merge selectively to Transfer (association football) and redirect Lederman there. If the case against FIFA actually occurs and achieves notability, it should be spun out to its own article, and Lederman should redirect to that article. ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 12:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or widerGNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He is notable as he has the distinction of being the first American invited to train in FC Barcelona's La Masia academy. FC Barcelona is widely regarded as one of the greatest football clubs in the world, with many regarding recent Barcelona teams as the greatest of all time. Since many Barcelona players that helped them capture recent titles (Lionel Messi, Andrés Iniesta, Gerard Piqué, Sergio Busquets, Cesc Fàbregas, Xavi Hernández, etc.) are all products of La Masia academy, the academy itself has become famous and highly regarded throughout the world.[1] In 2010, La Masia achieved a record breaking honor becoming the first youth academy to have trained all three finalists for the Ballon d'Or in a single year, with Andrés Iniesta, Lionel Messi and Xavi Hernández.[2] Given the fact that association football is the most popular sport in the world and America in many ways is one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world, it stands to reason that Ben Lederman's distinction as the first American invited to Barcelona's La Masia academy is a notable achievement for a player and for the growth of association football in the United States.[3]. Lederman has received significant credible coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The NY Times, LA Times, Sports Illustrated, Chicago Sun Times are some of the multiple sources that have covered Ben Lederman on a variety of subjects (not limited to the FIFA case). He has received coverage as a promising youth player, to the growth of soccer in America, to his achievement in being the first American invited to train at Barcelona's famed La Masia Academy, to the FIFA transfer dispute, to his return to the US to join the IMG Academy, to his selection for the U-17 US National Team.[4][5][6][7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rippy33 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:00, 27 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Katukam[edit]

Ravi Katukam (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)

Promotional article, notability is not establsihed, does not satisfy WP:BLP. Was nominated for speedy deletion by another user but the nomination was removed. Beagel (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete self-promotion. Curro2 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to concerns raised above, none of the article's sources are about the subject. Also, none of the awards seem notable (and only one of them is sourced). So, I'm not seeing the subject pass either the general notability guidelines or the guidelines for academics/researchers. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Heh as published a good deal a/c Goodle Scholar, but in very minor places, and the sort of technical article that won't be cited significantly. I do not think there's evidence for notability
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 00:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Zell[edit]

Leah Zell (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 is a poorly sourced Biography of a Living Person. This article is full of false information, and, for that reason, the subject has personally asked for this article to be removed. For example, two different birth years are stated, and both are incorrect. Place of birth and the name of the subject's company are also incorrect. Many statements are lacking in sources or are supported by unverifiable/unreliable sources. Source 3 is an example of an unverifiable and unreliable source, as it gives false information. I would suggest that this article be removed until a reliable replacement article can be produced, as it is damaging to the reputation of the subject Lizardbb (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the article was nominated for deletion, it contained several reliable sources about the subject, including the two book sources I listed below. Did you review the sources in the article? Cunard (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only does Zell pass WP:GNG, but everyone here voting delete is saying that AfC is garbage and should be dumped as a horrible experiment because it doesn't work. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 05:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. John F. Wasik (13 May 2014). The Bear-Proof Investor: Prospering Safely in Any Market. Henry Holt and Company. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-1-4668-7102-1.

      The book notes:

      Lean Joy Zell is the kind of person who would succeed running a megacorporation, chairing a history department at an Ivy League college, or holding a Cabinet post. Her intelligence and confident élan radiate from her like a high-tension electrical line. In her role as manager of the Liberty Acorn International Fund, she has the job of finding ways to invest more than $2 billion across the world in small- and mid-cap companies. Like John Rogers and Bill Miller, she is largely a value player, but she focuses on overseas companies that have market capitalizations under $5 billion. She spends most of her time traveling between the countries where she has the top-five allocations: the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, and Canada. She has more frequent-flyer miles than time to spend them.

      Taut with short hair and wire-rimmed glasses, Leah Zell takes her time to compose her sentences as if everyone one of them is to be written out in elegant prose. With continents to consider, she does the mental calculus of finding bargains across different economies, reading prospectuses in different languages, diversifying across several industries, and dealing with fluctuations of several currencies. Holding a Ph.D. from Harvard in modern European social and economic history, she's an unabashed expert on how Europe and Japan rebuilt after World War II. With that unique perspective, she knows the landscape with an academic, disciplined sense of history. Although she is brimming with investment ideas, Zell doesn't have to go far to discuss investing. Her husband and partner, Ralph Wanger, is the revered manager of the Liberty Acorn Fund, a small-cap domestic fund. Her brother, Sam Zell, is the legendary real estate mogul also known as "the grave dancer" for his prowess in finding properties at fire-sale prices.

      Balance is a powerful theme in Zell's work. Her Harvard dissertation concentrated on finding a workable balance of economic growth and stability in the postwar era. As a value investor, she is consantly seeking the ideal medium between price and the intrinsic value of a company. Due to the objective of her fund, she has to look for that delicate combination outside the sphere of powerful international companies like Nestlé, Philips, Daimler, and Nokia. Instead, she focuses her research on lesser-known companies like the Serco Group, Li & Fung, Autogrill, and Capita Group. Her fund contains no more than 20 percent of its holdings in any one industry; it's diversifed across business services, consumer goods/services, financial services, broadcasting/media, and industrials.

    2. Meredith A. Jones (28 April 2015). Women of The Street: Why Female Money Managers Generate Higher Returns (and How You Can Too). Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 29–. ISBN 978-1-137-46291-6.

      The book notes:

      Leah Zell aims small. She has laser focus, both in management and in her favorite pastime, dual slalom skiing, in which success rests on picking a course through the fall line and executing with precision. At her company, Lizard Investors, she exercises what she calls "ruthless elimination" of stocks to create a top-performing portfolio of international small-cap stocks. Zell embodies keen concentration and determination.

      ...

      Originally, Zell studied European history at Harvard, where she earned her PhD. Then she discovered a love for getting more immediate feedback and doing entrpreneurial research, so she changed careers and took a job on Wall Street. Her famous sibling, Sam Zell, helped her make the decision. Sam is known in the business community as the "grave dancer," and was described in an October 2013 article in Forbes as a "72-year-old man with a penchant for both gold chains and profanity, as a corporate barbarian who callously ransacked great journalistic institutions in a greedy pursuit of short-term profit." In contrast, Forbes dubbed Leah "the queen of small caps" in 2002. Despite these different depictions, in many ways Sam and Leah are seeking the same thing: great entrepreneurs and companies they can buy at a discount and see grow over the long term.

      Zell uses her academic background to deeply research international small cap stocks. After leaving the investment banking world of Lehman Brothers in 1984, she joined the staff of money manager Ralph Wanger. From 1992 to 2003, Zell served as lead portfolio manager for Wanger Asset Management's Acorn International Fund, and through 2005 as lead manager for Wanger Small European Companies Fund. Zell spent five years in the top 10 percent of her asset management peers during her tenure as the manager for Acorn International before Zell and Wanger sold the firm in 2003. It is now a subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial under the Colombia brand.

      Zell is recognized as a pioneer in international small-cap investing, and in 2008, she set up her own shop. As founder and principal of Lizard Investors and the portfolio manager of Lizard International Fund, Zell and her team gather enormous amounts of information...

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

    Cunard (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any incorrect information, such as her age, we can correct that through normal editing processes, as we did with Dan Savage and many other articles. AfD is not for clean-up. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud-dew architecture[edit]

Cloud-dew architecture (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)

Self-promotion of an concept with a limited notability. Mys_721tx (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Dear Editor: Here are two links that show the influence of this research area:
http://www.ronpub.com/OJCC/cfp-si/2016/DC-2016
http://dewcomputing.org/index.php/dewcom-2016/
A journal is planning a special issue for this topic. A conference will be held this summer for this area.
This concept is like cloud computing in 10 years ago: not in the media everyday, but researchers are working on it actively.
I am part of a research team, but I am not promoting for myself. Three big groups are working intensively: one in Atlanta, USA, one in Croatia. One in Canada. Some other individual researchers are also involved. Could you reconsider your decision? What can I do to make it better? Thanks. Ywangupeica (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, sources seem to be just self-promotion in minor publications without peer reviews. I'm not going to re-enter the "it's a nasty predatory publisher just because Beall says it is" debate again, but the fact that Inderscience Publishers is a predatory publisher is too certain for even me to raise pov questions. And even if Ywangupeica's best hopes for the concept are realized, it is to soon for an article now. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete per Tiptoe. Curro2 (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We probably should also discuss about dew computing as they are using the same sources. -Mys_721tx (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons that we should delete dew computing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Inderscience Publishers is listed in Wikipedia, it is "an academic publisher that publishes peer-reviewed journal". Beall list does not have Inderscience Publishers. Their review was pretty tough. It took them 13 months to accept one of my papers. "RonPub" was listed in Beall's list in 2014, and it was removed from the list in 2015.
Discussion about Dew computing is in another page. When you judge that article, please notice one of the previous versions is significantly different from the current one. This is because of the reverting. The following version describes the definition and history, provides more citation and other information about Dew computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dew_computing&oldid=701776129 Ywangupeica (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Qwertyus, exactly the same arguments apply to both. It turns out that this page, like that one, is a copyvio; as in that case, I'd normally have nominated it for speedy deletion as G12, but have instead blanked it and listed at WP:CP so that this discussion can run its course. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and maybe also salt. Non-notable neologism which may or may not have anything behind it but, even if it has, it not showing up in Google News, Newspapers or Scholar as a notable subject. The COI stuff is annoying but not fatal in itself. The lack of notability is. I make up new cloud computing terminology to amuse/confuse/annoy my colleagues all the time. Sadly, that isn't notable either. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:53, 30 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sachi Wickramage[edit]

Sachi Wickramage (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 meet notability guidelines in WP:BIO. The article looks like promotional material for the individual and his business. The biographical content ("Life and career" section) contains only two inline references, both of which look like they are connected to the subject. obi2canibetalk contr 20:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Curro2 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Per G11. Obviously fails WP:GNG, and looks to be a blatant advertisement/promotion of a person. WP:NOTRESUME absolutely applies here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious self-promotion. Dan arndt (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per valid citations and references provided specifically regarding the World Summit Award and many other multiple award winning mobile Apps and are being loved and used by majority of populations in Brazil, USA, Cananda and Australia77.234.45.139 (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19],AnGeloAnoJan (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are about the product/company, they only mention Wickramage in passing. That isn't the the in-depth coverage required by WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO.--obi2canibetalk contr 12:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AnGeloAnoJan - None of these sources assert notability of the person. These may assert notability of the company, but it is the article subject himself that this AFD thread must examine. WP:GNG requires reliable sources that cover the article subject in-depth, and that enough reliable sources exist to provide significant coverage, or coverage to where no original research is needed to cover the article subject in its entirety. This clearly does not exist; the article looks to be full of original research, and what sources are cited do not meet the standards required of WP:RS and WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject is clearly notable because of the continuing international success of the software products he has co-founded. This is reflected in the thousands of 'downloads' his software products such as FlipBeats[20], and Expense Tracker 2.0[21], gets each month on both Apple iOS and Android platforms.169.53.164.115 (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per SMART CONTENT for SMART PEOPLE[1] this notable publicationBT Harrison (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AieW3xIdF0Q
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Masia#Impact
  3. ^ http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-soccer-baxter-20151220-story.html
  4. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/sports/soccer/at-barcelonas-la-masia-a-rare-us-child-soccer-star.html
  5. ^ http://chicago.suntimes.com/soccer/7/71/926681/report-barca-product-ben-lederman-to-join-u-s-u-17-residency-program
  6. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/sports/soccer/barred-from-playing-matches-american-soccer-prospect-leaves-barcelona.html?_r=0
  7. ^ http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015/09/07/barcelona-fifa-ben-lederman-us-residency
  8. ^ ReadMe.lk
  9. ^ Video Interview by ICTA
  10. ^ Networked India Magazine
  11. ^ Publication ISBN 9789551199128
  12. ^ Financial Times
  13. ^ Daily News
  14. ^ Mirror Business
  15. ^ The Island
  16. ^ Financial Times
  17. ^ Ada Derana News
  18. ^ Ada Derana News
  19. ^ News JS USA
  20. ^ FlipBeats
  21. ^ Expense Tracker 2.0
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dibs (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 is just a dictionary definition, with no evidence of notability, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —me_and 19:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Curro2 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTADICTIONARY, nor should it try to be because it's a tough job as this entry shows. The OED would show several other definitions for this word.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a dicdef now, but it used to be much longer than it currently is – see this diff from about ten months ago in which a whole lot of country-by-country information was removed. It wasn't a well written page, and the article was very much lacking in sources – but it at least shows that the article can be more than a simple dicdef, and can branch into a slightly wider description of dibs as a social phenomenon. It just needs the effort to be put into it, and a Google search indicates that references which treat the subject in a serious way aren't too hard to find. I might give it a try if I have a dull moment over the coming days. At the very least don't WP:SALT the article if it reaches a deletion consensus on DICDEF grounds. Aspirex (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the old version of the article, the lede looks like unverifiable OR, and the rest is entirely dictionary content, just including a translation dictionary as well as definitions and etymology. Edited to add: See also Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Not size – a full-size dictionary entry can easily be as long as the old article, including translations, illustrative quotes, etc. —me_and 11:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware of the failings of the old version, but it was specific content such as the dibsing of carparking spaces which caught my attention as potential encyclopedic content. Likewise there is a parallel to calling shotgun which can be explored to bring the article beyond a dicdef. Aspirex (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Unsourced spam posted by the company, no evidence of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JUnit-Tools[edit]

JUnit-Tools (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 software, creator Junittools wiki (talk · contribs) has a clear COI, seems too promotional JMHamo (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no independent, reliable coverage to establish notability. Curro2 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

194.127.8.11 (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC) The article JUnit-Tools was not finished yet. I want to change it, I don't like to produce an article which seems to promotional. I only want to add a helpful information. An I think that is good to know, that this tools is available. There are many other tools, which are listed around JUnit. So what is the main difference to other little tools which are described in Wikipedia?[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amzy[edit]

Amzy (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 doesn't meet WP:BAND with the only noticeable thing done seems to be performing in a small local theater and participating in one local event. Yash! 19:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Curro2 (talk) 01:35, 27 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. Non-adminstrative closure. Nomination withdrawn upon presentation of additional sources that verify the subject's notability.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Mills (author)[edit]

David Mills (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)

Subject appears to fail WP:GNG. Aside from a brief mention in a book by a notable author (Richard Dawkins), the article is sorely lacking reliable independent sources. I was unable to locate any secondary sources to verify most of the article's claims. Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well according to this Guardian article David Mills is also noted as founder of a sex dolls company, and is also mentioned in Vanity Fair and NY Mag and probably elsewhere. I think there might be enough to say this guy is noted in the media. JMWt (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good finds. Thank you!--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn: Per sources provided byJMWt, the subject meets criterion of WP:GNG and WP:42--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:58, 27 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 Interhemispheric Resource Center. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Relations Center[edit]

International Relations Center (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)

Organization appears not to exist. Page was created in 2007 by a user who was blocked long ago. It has no sources. The link given on page for this International Relations Center is dead. When i search for "International Relations Center" a number of pages come up, including the Centro de Relaciones Internacionales but not a Center matching the description on this page. Some of the hits on a search of "International Relations Center" + "New Mexico" go to dead links (http://meldi.snre.umich.edu/node/17509) although this one: [2] seems to indicate that the place once existed. As does this one: [3], and this one: [4]. However, I can find no indication that it still exists, nor sources to establish that it was notable. A search on google books does get some hits: [5], including one indicating that the Center was associated with "Tom Barry", probably: Tom Barry (political analyst):, himself a political activist of questionable notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG delete - This is clearly some sort of vandal or single-authorship article. The fact that it's managed to stay on Wikipedia for this long baffles me. Parsley Man (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The external links appear to be extremely dodgy to me. There are no references and nil news coverage of this "organization". CatcherStorm talk 06:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Library of Congress considered it worthwhile archiving their website. Unquestionably a real organization that existed from 1979 to 2008. If an organization was ever notable, its going out of existence surely never justifies a deletion of an article. So some of the reasons given above seem bizarre. "Not existing now" is not a reason, nor is "created by a user who was later blocked." Nor is "single authorship," which goes for thousands of articles. Certainly it's no vandalism. The only question is whether this former organization is notable. Google searches in that regard should include the former name Interhemispheric Resource Center (incidentally another article exists under that title, which should be deleted too if this one is, or else redirected). Here is a source that seems reliable enough: [6], which I think establishes sufficient notability by the prevailing standards. Thousands of books seem to refer to the organization: [7]. Mewulwe (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to User:Mewulwe, for finding this: [[8]] reliable source establishing that the Interhemispheric Resource Center existed form 1979 until 2008. There are not, however, "thousands" of hits on google books for "International Relations Center", here:[9], such a search, which I did run, comes up with pages of hits on other uses of these three words. ("Some of the main intellectual challenges in the study of international relations center on international security, beginning with the study of...") Even under the name "Interhemispheric Resource Center" there only about 5 pages of hits, some of which are mere listings (for example, The Internship Bible; Evolving Internet Reference Resources, Vault Guide to Internships and the like). Even the google book hits that look solid at first blush, such as this: [10] (Waltzing with the Raptors: A Practical Roadmap to Protecting Your Company's Reputation) in fact merely reprints the center's own self-description: "Our projects reflect our beliefs that..." . Another, Global Focus: U.S. Foreign Policy at the Turn of the Millennium is authored by Tom Barry and thus not independent. Others are Center publications, and citations of reports the Center published. This would not suffice if the Center were still extant, but perhaps it is sufficient to keep page on a defunct center. Seeking something more persuasive of notability, I ran an news archive search on Proquest, and finally came up with something. A news story from 27 Feb 2000 that ran in the Albuquerque Journal, "Chomsky Chides Corporations, Government in City Speech". "Chomsky was in Albuquerque to speak at the 20th anniversary celebration of the Interhemispheric Resource Center, a foreign- policy watchdog group based in New Mexico. Chomsky, a faculty member at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is on the resource center's board of directors." I think we can redirect this to the article on the Interhemispheric Resource Center and source it to this article in the Albuquerque Journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as noted by DGG below. Draft and userfy at best for now if there's enough sourcing to make a better article until set for mainspace again. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft until enough reliable sources are found. I did a quick search and didn't find enough information to warrant an article but i suspect something might come up with thorough research. → Call me Razr Nation 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to Inerhemispheric Resource Center,] as suggested; If Chomsky was on the Board, there will be sources, but it'll take a manual search. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - If there cannot be a clear consensus here, I would appreciate if this were relisted a third and last time. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska sourdough[edit]

Alaska sourdough (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)

Pretty much just a dictionary definition, a violation of WP:NOTDIC Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call me undecided. I feel like there is a lot more that could be said, depending on proper sources being located, but as it stands it is just definition and not an encylopedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
found an old article reprinted from the Chicago Tribune [11]Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is about the slang term for an "old-timer" to contrast with one who is newly arrived. I see from the article history that the dicdef issue has been noted since at least 2008. The term is adequately covered, and well-sourced, in the article on the Klondike gold rush. As far as the bread leavener, it has its own article. Redirect this article after deletion to the culture section of the Klondike gold rush article. Geoff | Who, me? 22:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As it sits, it is a dictionary definition of a slang term. Origins of the phrase in the Klondike gold rush and the bread product are already covered in other articles. The term "Alaskan" redirects to "Alaska" so it might be argued that a redirect could be left here without pain. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract groove[edit]

Abstract groove (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. None of these references actually demonstrate the notability of the studio, and it does not inherit notability from its director. ubiquity (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as questionable, as mentioned. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Luigi Pane or delete. I see some trivial mentions and press releases, but there's not enough significant coverage. Hopefully, Pane is more notable than his studio. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:43, 31 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Bagratid dynasties[edit]

Origin of the Bagratid dynasties (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 appears that when this article was originally created by a well-intending user in 2006, it was unreferenced and written as a narrative with no clear sourcing. Almost a decade later, the article either still lacks sourcing for essential points contained herein, some of which have remained unsourced for years, or contains sourced SYNTHESIS compiled in a way that formulates conclusions which may or may not have been intended by the original authors. This article has not added anything new or relevant to the discussion of dynastic origin that is not already found on the Bagrationi page. Rather, it has created an additional venue for controversy and repeated conflicting edits and counteredits. When stripped of unsourced material and synthesis, this article would at best merit being a section or a subsection in the main article. Damianmx (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a novel AfD reason expressed by the proposer. I have not seen "has had too much editing warring on it" used as reason to delete before. We don't delete articles to make life easy for editors! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The difference between the two articles is that Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty was created and mostly written/sourced as recently as 2014, and was nominated solely on notability/original research grounds, whereas this articles has been in its dire state for an entire decade and tells us nothing besides that the dynastic origin has been a subject of speculation and dispute. Even if this article was to be somehow expanded, it would not merit a page separate from the Biblical descent page, as the latter is also part of "origin" hypotheses, albeit a bloated one.--Damianmx (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article is redundant. Most of info refers to origins of Bagrationi not of Bagratuni. Even the title of the article sounds a bit illogical as all we see there is theories about origin of one dynasty that is Bagrationi. Info can be always expanded in the origins section of Bagrationi dynasty itself. Jaqeli 13:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article titled "origin of ...." can hardly be called synthesis because the origin of any ruling dynasty would form an essential part of the study of that dynasty. And plenty of sources have content on that origin. Nor can I see anything "illogical" about the title: the title, with its "dynasties" wording, refers to the common origin of both the Bagratuni and Bagrationi branches, and possible expansion could include content on its other branches too (there were more than just two). Of course the Bagratuni dynasty and Bagrationi dynasty articles will have content that is duplicated in this article, but this article can explore the subject in more detail, detail not appropriate for these other articles which cover a far wider time scale. Arguably, the Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty should go, and its content merged into this article. The only strong argument against such a merge would be that there might be too much content to be merged. However, if the latter article is kept, an article which is about the mythical origin, how can the deletion of an article about the actual origin be justified? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:34, 26 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 02:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia Fenech[edit]

Alexia Fenech (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)

Don't be confused by the link bombing supporting the winner of the pageant held a year before the subject competed at Miss Earth. She only won an infrequently held local event. Fails WP:NMODEL and basically no info about this woman provided. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. On a quick search for her name the only things I found that even approached legitmacy were a couple of interviews, including this one for a Maltese online men's magazine. Fails general notability. Mabalu (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems insufficientevidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this still seems questionable for the applicable notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 06:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DesignSpark Mechanical[edit]

DesignSpark Mechanical (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 doubt the notability of this--almost all the refs are from the firm's own site DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I added a reference linking to a one-paragraph 3rd party review but I don't think that or anything else that I can see (mainly routine announcements) demonstrates notability in terms of WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG at this point. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned because this is still questionably solidly notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG per the journal sources and bylined articles below. Specialized computer-aided design software such as this is typically not going to receive coverage in "mainstream" sources (e.g. CNN, Fox News, Computerworld, PC Magazine, etc.) The sources listed below appear to be reliable, and independent of the software publisher. North America1000 07:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
– Source Info: "Global Electronics China provides industry-focused content covering important global business and technology development, trends and events. Each digital issue delivers in-depth technology coverage of leading global component technologies, designs, analysis, applications, market review, and new products." "Represented In: US, Canada, Europe".
– Source Info: "Established more than 40 years ago, New Electronics is the electronics industry's leading magazine and a central hub for design engineers."
– Source Info: "EE Times and its growing network of websites, combined with our series of ESC events throughout the year is your online and face-to-face connection to the global electronics community. With an expanding base of expert contributors, guided by award-winning editors, community leaders and journalists ..." "EE Times has covered the electronics industry since 1972."
– Source Info: "Engineering.com is a digital media publisher that brings the most influential voices in engineering to a worldwide audience of designers and engineers."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:34, 26 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) Esquivalience t 21:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadmi Sena[edit]

Aam Aadmi Sena (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)

as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSCANDAL the news paper citations comes under one time event as per WP:BLP1E Shrikanthv (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 08:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 08:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a stub article. Why the need for censorship ? What happened ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur but i guess this has to be discussed before on the relevant talk page , I guess there are some editors who are involved in this topic, a view from them could be interesting again in the relevant talk page Shrikanthv (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is going on here ? I added some information about a dissident group to the main article page of AAP, and along comes some guy, who deletes it. This is not "controversial" information. It is sourced to news reports. This is fact-based information. After my edit was deleted, I created a stub article, in hopes that that way the information can survive further acts of vandalism. And then the same guy, who vandalised the information on the main article page for AAP comes and flags my stub article for deletion. How does this make any sense ? You over look the vandalism acts to delete the information, but colour acts to defend the information as meriting discretionary sanctions ? In what parallel universe do I find myself in ? It was a starter article. If there are any questions about the subject matter, the first thing -- in the interest of making fact-based, sourced information more to Wikipedia's standards -- would be to expand the stub article, not delete it. What is going on here ? It seems rather fishy that there is a specific rule for Indian politics. That's a flag right there that Wikipedia is deleting information just because, why, it's too controversial ? Controversial to whom ? It's not conversion, because it is fact-based and sourced. So, Wikipedia's way of dealing with information one valdaliser (in the position of an editor) doesn't like is to automatically delete it ? And I get accused of being in a Twitter war by the vandaliser, just because I'm trying to protect the information from heavy-handed acts to delete/vandalise it ? Wow, what a way to defend free access to fact-based, sourced information. Maslowsneeds (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi , do not take things personally it was a routine check for me, please go through Verifiability, take time to read and discuss with fellow editors before pointing and passing "one's personnel" truths as facts , there may be many faces to the same facts Shrikanthv (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have fluffed the stub article with substantive amendments to show that the group has been active in Delhi politics, and certainly it has had a measure of impact on holding AAP to account itself to Delhi residents. The group has been engaged in actions to hold government officials accountable on a range of issues from making improvements to the electrical power grid, to providing security on Delhi buses for women's safety, and to force the government to address corruption. I provided citations to reputable news Web sites, including to citations to Getty Images, where you can see some photographic indication of the size of some of the group's demonstrations. Certainly this much information should be sufficient to allow the sub article to survive your determined efforts to delete it (at least for now). As it is a stub article, I'm sure that other Wikipedia contributors can add to the sub article, as is meant to be. There should be no bias against stub articles -- unless there are other motivations at work here ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see anything like one-time event here. The group finds mentions in 2014 news and as recent as Jan 2016 news. Merger might be a option to be discussed on talk page, but nothing to delete and censor. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this was a passing protest act, it would have already dissipated. This is sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Curro2 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I would've almost closed it as such, as this seems keepable and also improvable if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 30 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Crying Spell[edit]

The Crying Spell (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 lacks notability and reads like an advertisement. Meatsgains (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might have jumped the gun on assuming no coverage in the media. Not sure why those RS were not used to create the page originally instead of the poor references that page currently has. Meatsgains (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm don't think MTV biographies are written by a third party. I would consider that a glorified press release. AXS is a ticket merchant. I don't know about the others, but I have my doubts. Planetmosh.com does not have an editor listed in their staff, just a "team leader". I might do more digging later. It's not obvious to me yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was right about MTV.com: here are the instructions to create your own band biography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Change vote to Leaning Delete: NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for the digging. MTVu (primarily sourced) gave national play, but it's not clear that play continued after the one-week rotation, so it's of low weight. Seahawks competition is something, but it's not clear that it gave much notability given its structure (was the Fan Appreciation Day match broadcast? Print reviews might be few given it was on 28 Dec 2014). QRO must be struck as potentially paid. With Planetmosh, the indication is that there is (or at least was) editing -- see the "Former Editor..." down the page for Rocktastic/Sheila, however the article's author has only written two articles. TCS have limited local radio support (see this but this). The best hope for sourcing would appear to be in more mainstream (possibly offline and/or foreign and/or broadcast) coverage of the Killing Joke or Julien-K tours, but it feels like notability is currently marginal at best. ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 10:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-dada organizers[edit]

Neo-dada organizers (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)

Possible WP:COPYVIO, notability not substantiated. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The copyright violation has to be fixed and the article more fully referenced, but Neo-Dada was one of the more important art movements in Japan in the 1960s, with the Organizers quite prominent in that. In the least, the article has to be renamed "Neo-Dada Organizers" to match sources. A short search just of Google Books already finds many references: [12], [13], [14], [15] (this is a list of references), [16], [17], etc. I found the Japanese Wikipedia article and linked it to this, and it has a number of references too. One issue is that now both the Japanese and the English Wikipedias have articles on Neo-Dada and Neo-dada organizers. There is some overlap. The former is about a worldwide art movement, the latter about one group participating in that movement in Japan. Some could argue that the latter could be merged into the former, but I believe there is enough material to justify a separate article. Michitaro (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article--mostly just by cutting it down--to avoid the copyright violation. Michitaro (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With the copyvio removed, there is no longer any problem. A2soup (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical note - I moved the page to Neo-Dada Organizers to facilitate incoming links, something that should probably be noted by the closer. A2soup (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this seems improvable. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Neo-Dada. It's good that the copyright violations were cleaned up, but there still remains the question of how much there can be said about this group. The article tells us that it was limited to ten artists who were active over a three year period, but I've seen another source that says the group was smaller and lasted less than a year. The article itself only identifies six artists and gives us a (presumably) complete schedule of activities that spans only about six months. Add to this the fact that the Neo-Dada article is itself pretty short. This looks to be a situation for which WP:NOPAGE applies. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide this other source that says it lasted less than a year? The time span of three years comes from the Oxford Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art. The schedule of six months you reference is not presumably complete - it is from an essay subtitled The Neo-Dada Art Actions in 1960 Tokyo, explicitly limiting the time frame covered to only 1960. A2soup (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification of the timeline. The source I spoke of is here. But just to be clear on the basic point -- I am NOT advocating "delete". I don't question the notability of the group; I just think that the material would be better placed within the article for Neo-Dada. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if there are only a few people, if they are notable enough, they can form a valid artistic movement. Since the movement is in fact referred to in standard references books, it's notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Monga[edit]

Alexis Monga (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)

PROD removed/declined. His party might be notable, but can't find much that says he is. Most references seem to be to Facebook or Twitter. GedUK  13:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a prominent executive member of a notable political party can be a valid claim of notability if the article is sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but it does not confer automatic inclusion rights on every such person who exists at all — particularly if their sourceability depends almost entirely on social media and blogs. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if a good version can be written and sourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a news google search on "Alexis Monga" came up blank. If he was notable, there would have been something.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This party has recieved notice, and he is the moving force behind the party. Unless people demonstrate that they have searched news media in the DR Congo and found no mention of Monga, we should keep it. To do otherwise would perpetuate systemic bias articles on non-western people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • News media from the Congo do come up on google news, but there are not hits on Alexis Monga.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian M Barnett[edit]

Brian M Barnett (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)

Don't believe that this person meets GNG. I struggled to find RS for him. Don't think he meets WP:ENTERTAINER Gbawden (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the majority of the sources are WP:ROUTINE match results or from primary sources. I don't believe the brief mentions in the Phoenix News Times satisfy "significant" third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 08:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now at best, draft and userfy and also mention elsewhere if needed, as this article is, despite the current sourcing, still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice, should evidence of non-trivial coverage of the subject come forward at a later date. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Rahif Hakmi[edit]

Mohammed Rahif Hakmi (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 appear to meet notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I can't see any significant coverage from reliable sources. Author of several academic papers doesn't suffice, "businessman of the year" is certainly a claim of significance but a) I'm not sure it's sufficient, and b) I can't see how this is backed up by the cited ref (english translation). Article reads more like a CV, and has seemingly largely been edited by it's subject, and another editor with close ties to Hakmi's company (a concern I've listed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard). Have tagged the article as having been written with a clear conflict of interest. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015Let It Go  18:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015Let It Go  18:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Human3015Let It Go  18:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to keep adding more reliable sources to the subject. Please point me in the right direction to improve it further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PresleySimpson (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for an assessment of the sources posted by User:PresleySimpson. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:27, 26 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Morrison[edit]

Craig Morrison (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 article topic—a video game designer—is not independently notable from Age of Conan/Funcom (i.e., lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources). (?) All hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search were primarily about Funcom or Age of Conan, for which he was a creative director, and any coverage of Morrison fits within the context of those articles. I think either would be a fine redirect, but my attempt at that was reverted. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Morrison works on the genre's biggest game now (World of Warcraft) which has millions of fans, myself included. That seems more influential than his work at Funcom, a much smaller developer, and still worthy of note. His first expansion on World of Warcraft as Design Manager pushed WoW back over 10 million subscribers [Forbes]. He has spoken at quite a few industry events independent of Funcom, including GDC and taking part in well attended panels discussions on MMO development at the popular PAX convention. He also teaches Game Design at a large, well established, US school University of California, Irvine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.204.39 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC) — 12.129.204.39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As in the links above, we care about what reliable sources have said about the subject. None of the above says Morrison is independently notable from the games he worked on. Anything written about him in a reliable, secondary source can be adequately described in the game/company articles. czar 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely by definition, once a designer has worked on multiple important, well received, and successful games by different companies, and has been recognized by his industry (as a leader, speaker, and teacher) then he should be considered 'independently notable'? How else would a game designer be notable, but for the design of the games he leads?
Through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) (If we don't have enough reliable material to write an article, we can't write an article.) czar 19:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Edging towards delete, but I did dig through some stuff, such as this Gamasutra interview provides some decent direct coverage of him and his views, with another example here. Engadget has several times made news articles [18][19][20] in response to his personal blog entries, which helps illustrate that the industry is paying attention to his direct views. This GameIndustry article doesn't help notability but does verify some of his past (Telegraph, IGN).
Notably though, I found a strange lack of any real coverage of his time with Blizzard. -- ferret (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blizzard is notoriously cagey about letting it's people on World of Warcraft talk in public (at least Historically, although Hearthstone is starting to change that) Massively]. He has clearly been of interest to the industry at large at various points in the past, and he is still actively blogging on how to get into games and educational stuff [21] (which probably ties to his work at UCI, and is active on such topics on Twitter [22])
  • Comment He was featured independently in a Documentary on the Conan the Barbarian license itself [[23]]. He also appears as one of the experts in the upcoming documentary Riddle of Steel: The Definitive History of Conan the Barbarian, that focuses on Robert E Howard and Conan [Vimeo Teaser (3:50 mark)] [24]. Both suggest his knowledge goes beyond just the game (In particular given the latter is from 2015 as well which would be after he left Funcom (2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.204.39 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SwisterTwister: I am still on the fence... There's a number of interviews and coverage of his blog articles that may satisfy WP:CREATIVE Bullet 1 (Widely cited). These typically focus on his design beliefs or industry views, rather than the games he's directly been involved with. -- ferret (talk) 13:54, 30 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. Nominator changed view to keep, no dissenting opinions, seems overly bureaucratic to keep open. Fenix down (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenan Karisik[edit]

Kenan Karisik (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new sources below showing he meets NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:53, 27 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. consensus seems clear DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Carter Impact Academy[edit]

Coach Carter Impact Academy (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 proposed boarding school that never seems to have opened (see website). Nearly all the information on the web about the school post 2011 comes from the WP article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

things that raised alarms for me: from IP user on the talk page: "I live two blocks from the academy. The wikipedia page contains a few things that are not true. There are not 150 students at this academy, although I do hope that Coach Carter gets there someday. At the present, April 15, 2011, the academy has no students that I can tell, nor has it had any since 2009 when the academy was announced in the Waco Tribune Herald. There is no gym, as the wikipedia page claims, and roads around the academy ARE PAVED. This article speaks of things at the academy in the present tense, as if student life and culture exists and has been established. Wrong. I hope this school works out and it helps kids, don't missunderstand. Whoever wrote this article is doing this prospective school a disservice by making claims and statements that simply are not true." and an edit on the Marlin, Texas page asserting that the school never opened. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no evidence this was ever anything more than an idea. There are no NCES records of this school, the website is dead except for the homepage. Anyone having access to a legal database might be able to clear up some of the confusion. John from Idegon (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The school is obviously a figment of soeone's imagination or wishful thinking. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 30 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, consensus is that Pulisic now passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Pulisic[edit]

Christian Pulisic (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to Borussia Dortmund. However, since has not yet made his debut, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he was in the first team squad for the Bundesliga game against Borussia Monchengladbach. I would say that since he has a number officially on the first team that he is a notable player. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or widerGNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best, can be recreated if / when he makes a fully pro appearance. Fenix down (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been significantly covered in reliable sources to convey notability upon this young athlete.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just made debut for Dortmund. Sporsfan needs to read. --ArsenalFan700 ([[User --SirEdimon (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)talk:ArsenalFan700|talk]]) 15:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As mentioned above he just made his first team debut which would achieve WP:NFOOTBALL therefore I think the deletion argument can be removed. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He already played in a fully professional league. --SirEdimon (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides when this discussion is over and when, because it seems like it should be over because the player in question made his debut. There's not anything to argue. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 23:54, 30 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. consensus is no notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy for Genealogical and Heraldic Studies[edit]

International Academy for Genealogical and Heraldic Studies (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)

PROD removed. Original concern was "This is a bogus organisation. It purports to have high ideals but is using a stolen coat of arms arms. The arms they are using belong to Sir Alasdair Workman MacRobert, 2nd Baronet (1912–1938) - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacRobert_baronets . Although the baronetcy is extinct, this organisation has no authority to usurp the arms. The arms contain a Baronet's badge, something no organisation, in the whole of history was ever awarded." The usurped arms have been removed from the article, but the organization still fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support the deletion as this organisation appears not to meet the guidelines.GibCat (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi, I am terribly sorry but I was not made aware that these arms were in use. As soon as I got the message I deleted the arms myself as a goodwill. I kindly ask you to keep the page and let me add more references within a month or so. Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stourt (talk • contribs) 7:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)— Stourt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:53 26 January 2016 (UTC) (UTC).

  • Delete - Organization article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. As a side note, article should never have been approved through curation given the lack of RS sources. Dialectric (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per Dialectric. Can only agree that the article should never have been approved - who did it and why? Kiltpin (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Denver20 approved the page. I questioned this user's history in June when he applied for and received Pending changes reviewer rights. His recent edits show some competence and language issues, and I may file an AN case if there are continued problems.Dialectric (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe Initials bear a very close resemblance to The Institute of Heraldic and Genealogical Studies - a truly armigerous body based in Canterbury that is highly respected. A knowledgeable organization would know better than to steal some-one else's coat of arms (and a Baronets at that). Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anketil (talk • contribs) 12:44, 27 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Bolaris[edit]

John Bolaris (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)

Delete: utterly non-notable former local TV meteorologist, with some absurd scandals. Quis separabit? 15:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Average weatherman with the luck or working in big markets to magnify their influence combined with the misfortune of having stupid tabloid blown-up stories about them from said big market media. Nate • (chatter) 02:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly not notable for the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure if there is a WP:FACEPALM, but there should be. Coatrack of ridiculousness for a TV personality with a most marginal claim to notability. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Google#Corporate affairs and culture. All articles get redirected after merge anyway (unless stated otherwise) so I'm just closing as Merge and obviously it'd be redirected after. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google CodeF[edit]

Google CodeF (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 this meets WP:GNG. I can find one news report from Computerworld, but otherwise blogs, career websites, affiliated institutes and people's CVs. Maybe a search in different languages turns up more? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Google#Corporate affairs and culture. You'd have thought this thing would have more than one news report, even for allowing other terms like "google emea diversity". I can only assume CodeF was a project name that was later dropped. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Google and then redirect. When transfering the information across, I suggest using Computerworld as the reference (although this only mentions the UK and Germany, not Russian and Poland). None of the four references on the page right now are valid today. --Wavehunter (talk) 19:16, 26 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) –Davey2010Talk 00:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canned tea[edit]

Canned tea (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 brings adds very little of substance about 'canned tea' specifically, and simply takes general information from the tea article and those of specific sub-species.

Propose to delete article and merge the small amount of 'canned tea' content into tea. - blake- 14:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as easily satisfying notability standards. I found and added another source and rewrote the History section by way of example as to how the article can be further improved. More work and more citations are needed to be sure, but the subject is clearly significant enough to merit its own article and should not be merged into the tea article. In particular, the History and Appeal sections can be further expanded with references to the growth of the canned and bottled tea product sector, overtaking sugary soft drinks and other canned or bottled beverages in many parts of the world in the 30+ years since the product was first introduced, which in and of itself is a remarkable and notable achievement. Geoff | Who, me? 19:22, 27 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AusGamers[edit]

AusGamers (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 topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Most substantial article was this single one about the relaunch: [28] but nothing else. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 20:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 20:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The book has some good background, but that website has nothing to do with content quality as much as web safety—it's an automated report that it spits out about every website on the Internet, so it does nothing for notability. czar 18:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article requires significant work, however AusGamers appears notable. Aeonx (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is coverage by other sites as seen here. Kansiime (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even a cursory look at the HighBeam search results shows that the hits are either simple press releases or URLs—neither of which discuss the topic of AusGamers in any detail. czar 02:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for third time per this request by Czar.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had thoughts about taking this to AfD as I couldn't find enough information about it for it to considered notable here. GamerPro64 21:35, 27 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. GNG generally trumps an SNG if sources exist Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Laryea[edit]

Richie Laryea (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on "some stuff found through google", but without addressing the underlying concern. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found these: [32], [33], and [34]. These are all feature length pieces of major media outlets, so reliable and significant coverage is met. They are all sources that are independent and some of the most major outlets in Canada. Does not matter if he played in a fully pro league or if he meets WP:NFOOTY, these sources establish he meets GNG and that is all that matters. These sources are the "some stuff found through google" and now that we have an AfD those can be shown and evaluated as opposed to just a header. RonSigPi (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The sources found by @RonSigPi: are all just variations on the same theme - 'young prospect signs to MLS'. Not significant coverage, not notable. GiantSnowman 21:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or widerGNG. I agree with GS, the sources above are essentially just transfer speculation, the simple fact of the matter is this is an individual who has never actually played football at any significant level. Fenix down (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources User:RonSigPi provided are unusually extensive and biographical compared to what is typically seen for MLS draftees. Also, 2 of the 3 are in national, rather than regional or local publications, and the 3rd is in the largest broadsheet in the country. Meets WP:GNG. There isn't a single Generation Adidas in the previous 15 years that hasn't been notable, other than poor Zac Herold whose article was (twice) prodded [35] and [36], after he left the sport at age 17, following the discovery of a potentially fatal heart condition. Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources cited by RonSigPi are not in depth pieces focusing on the subject; they are reports on the MLS SuperDraft with an emphasis on Canadian players, though slightly more focused on Laryea than the others. Not nearly enough to meet GNG. As he has not also met WP:NFOOTY, this is another case of WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is standard and no depth of coverage. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)y[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Ridenour, Marla (2015-12-09). "University of Akron soccer: Richie Laryea uses fiery emotions to spur Zips, but sometimes sees yellow". Akron Beacon Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-01-26. Retrieved 2016-01-26.

      The article begins:

      When University of Akron soccer coach Jared Embick got a call to come see Richie Laryea again in December, 2013, neither could imagine that the midfielder would be enrolling at UA three weeks later.

      There has been a little bit of a frenzied tone to Laryea’s career ever since. A sophomore, Laryea is the Zips’ second-leading scorer and always seems to be part of the action, but his daring play and accompanying temper has also gotten him in trouble.

      The article further notes:

      Embick won’t dispute Laryea’s value. Embick remembers seeing Laryea when he was a sophomore at Dante Aligheri Academy in Toronto and how much he’d changed two years later.

      “As a sophomore, he was OK,” Embick said of Laryea, a member of Canada’s under-18 national team. “When he became a senior his coaches called me again and said, ‘He’s really developed. He had a school, it kind of fell through. We think he’s as good or better than Cyle Larin.’ ” Larin, from Brampton, Ontario, was drafted No. 1 overall by Orlando City SC and was named Major League Soccer’s rookie of the year in 2015.

      Laryea’s club coaches for Sigma FC invited Embick to a showcase in December.

      ...

      Laryea has never played anything but soccer since his dad introduced him to the game. He said he didn’t know much then and realizes he has much to learn now.

      “I played in running shoes and my dad’s long church socks,” Laryea said of his first team experience. “I was 6 years old, so the socks were almost as tall as I was. Ever since then I knew that’s what I wanted to do.”

    2. Davidson, Neil (2016-01-13). "Toronto midfielder Richie Laryea expected to go high at MLS SuperDraft". Toronto Star. The Canadian Press. Archived from the original on 2016-01-26. Retrieved 2016-01-26.

      The article notes:

      On Thursday, the Canadian spotlight shines on midfielder Richie Laryea at the MLS SuperDraft. The five-foot-nine, 151-pound sophomore from the University of Akron is expected to be a top-10 pick at the Baltimore Convention Center.

      Laryea, who like Larin grew up playing club soccer in the Toronto area for Sigma FC, is coming off a breakthrough season that saw him score a team-high 11 goals and add seven assists.

      Tied for fourth over 30 metres (3.99 seconds) at the MLS Combine, Laryea has the pace and vision to spot a teammate or get himself into a goal-scoring position. The 21-year-old has a nose for being in the right place at the right time.

    3. Tenorio, Paul (2016-01-14). "Orlando City selects Akron's Richie Laryea with No. 7 pick in MLS SuperDraft". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2016-01-26. Retrieved 2016-01-26.

      The article notes:

      Orlando City added some midfield depth with its first pick in the MLS SuperDraft on Thursday.

      The Lions selected Akron midfielder Richie Laryea, a Generation Adidas signee who adds depth across multiple spots in the midfield. Laryea, a Canadian international prospect, is best friends with Orlando City forward Cyle Larin.

      ...

      Laryea can play in multiple spots, Orlando City coach Adrian Heath said.

      "We just think his upside's enormous," Heath said. "We've watched him very, very closely and obviously the fact that he's big friends with Cyle we've known about him a long time. ... Let's just hope he has the impact Cyle's had, if he does it'll be a very good first pick for us."

      Laryea had 11 goals with seven assists at Akron last season and will look to find a place in a midfield that features Kaká, Darwin Cerén, Cristian Higuita, Carlos Rivas and Kevin Molino.

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

    Cunard (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources 1 and 2 were published before the draft. Source 1 in particular provides substantial biographical material about the subject. Sources 2 and 3 also provide significant biographical material about the subject.

    Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
    Cunard (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow editors time to evaluate the additional sources. Onel5969 TT me 13:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While from a WP:NFOOTY perspective this is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON, the coverage in the reliable sources that RonSigPi provided in his comments, and some of the coverage that Cunard provided, are strong enough for me to believe that the article can stay. PKT(alk) 16:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - Regarding the additional sources provided by Cunard:
    1. is a local newspaper reporter covering a local college team. While the newspaper is independent and reliable and the article does concentrate its focus on Laryea, it does not provide the widespread coverage required for WP:GNG.
    2. is the same as the second source provided by RonSigPi. It is primarily coverage of the MLS SuperDraft and does not provide the in-depth coverage of Laryea required for WP:GNG.
    3. is a piece by the local paper on the process Orlando City SC undertook to take Laryea in the #7 spot in the SuperDraft. It is not a piece about Laryea himself. While it can be used as a source to validate the statement that he was taken with the 7th pick, it does not provide enough to meet WP:GNG. This source is also already cited in the article.
Even when all three sources provided by Cunard are merged with the sources provided by RonSigPi and the three sources extant in the article (to provide 7 total sources since 2 are duplicated), I still don't see WP:GNG being met because 6 of those sources do not focus on Laryea, and the other is a local paper performing local coverage. My delete !vote stands unless a more in-depth biographical piece from either a nation-wide source (e.g. ESPN or TSN) or a source located outside the Toronto, Akron, and Orlando areas can be located. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am pinging GiantSnowman, Fenix down, and Joseph2302 to review these additional sources as they also cast delete !votes. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still think it should be deleted. Per @Jkudlick: above, the 3 new sources presented don't show a depth of coverage enough to pass WP:GNG. Only the first local source covers Laryea in any detail. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also accept a userfy/move to draftspace, as he's just signed for a fully professional team, and seems likely he will play for them in the next few months. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also still go for delete, the sources presented are just routine transfer talk / speculation on how great this player will be. The fundamental point at issue is that this is a person whom editors are claiming is notable as a footballer when he has not actually played football at any notable level yet.
  • Keep As he has joined a pro outfit RS should be coming when he plays.Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So we should keep the article in anticipation that the subject will become notable? How does that work with reference to current notability guidelines. Fenix down (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 00:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hung[edit]

Bruce Hung (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)

Questionable notability for this actor, looks like he is just one film as well. Wgolf (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - subject lacks notability (only appearing in one film) and is not covered in the media. Meatsgains (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparently not yet satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup the Chinese version of the article seems to have a bit more information. Look up "布魯斯" on google and you'll find a multitude of sources, including a verified Facebook page with over 300k likes.--Prisencolin (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but a Facebook page with over 300,000 likes does not qualify a subject to be significant or notable. Meatsgains (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it might.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be fair-there was no link to the Chinese page on here when I put this AFD up! Wgolf (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give editors time to evaluate sources provided by Cunard. Pinging users who commented prior to those sources being provided: SwisterTwister, Meatsgains and Wgolf Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources provided above are largely tabloid but they indicate a sufficiently high level of persistent coverage to confer notability. Deryck C. 22:36, 28 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 delete. Per G7. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Jeanette Aw[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Jeanette Aw (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)

Can I also include Jeanette Aw on screen and stage in this nomination?

These two articles were created by a SPA - I suspect Jeanette Aw's PR team. The content was unnecessarily spun off from Jeanette Aw for promotional purposes. Likewise the SPA and numerous IP addresses have butchered the Jeanette Aw article such that it reads entirely like a fluffy PR piece. Citobun (talk) 12:59, 26 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 and redirect to Hanksy. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tronald Dump[edit]

Tronald Dump (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)

Unnecessary and poorly referenced stub. Also an orphan article. SirLagsalott (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hanksy, where I just Merged it. Delete Well, by merge I mean I added a line to the other article and found more sources. The sources certainly don't support a stand-alone article, but there's enough to include it in the artist's. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. Mduvekot makes a good point. "Tronald Dump" isn't actually its name such that it would justify a redirect. The subject is now covered at Hanksy to the extent it should be covered on Wikipedia. This page should be deleted. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rhododendrites . There's nothing to support a standalone article. Delete. The mural has only been referred to as Tronald Dump by unnamed sources. Tronald Dump does have other meanings, one that is only cited to the urban dictionary, and several that are not cited at all, such as a character in an animated cartoon and a blog. None of those are notable or supported by reliable secondary sources. Mduvekot (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Mduvekot. Clearly fails WP:GNG and so doesn't qualify for a standalone article, and the content has already been merged to its rightful place.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Here's some sources: [1], [2]. North America1000 22:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Painting Of Donald Trump As A Pile Of Poop By Street Artist 'Hanksy' Appears In Manhattan, New York". The Huffington Post UK.
  2. ^ "PHOTO: Artist paints Donald Trump as a piece of poop". Metro.
  • Merge/Redirect to Hanksy. North America1000 22:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NOPAGE. Esquivalience t 21:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Northamerica1000 and Esquivalience: Just making sure you saw above that "Tronald Dump" doesn't actually look to be the name of anything (it was a description used by one or two publications), so, to me, it doesn't look appropriate for a redirect. I've already added more about this topic to Hanksy (in terms of sources) than existed in this article, so merge doesn't seem necessary either. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both of the sources I posted above refer to the painting, so retaining my merge/redirect !vote. North America1000 23:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wouldn't hurt to have a redirect for navigation. Esquivalience t 20:32, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Smerus (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amalia Carneri[edit]

Amalia Carneri (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)

Delete -fails WP:NOTABLE. (See discussion at Wikiproject Opera for background). The article cites a few recordings of individual songs or arias, mostly where Carneri is singing in duet with another. None of the others by the way seem to be notable or have articles. And the citations are just - and purely - that; listings with out any comment on the quality, value or significance of the recordings. The article gives no indication of Carneri ever having sung a major (or even minor) role at any opera house. Criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO, which has been cited in favour of the article in the linked discussion, states "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." It is more than arguable that Carneri does not meet this criterion (certainly no "albums".) (And if we accept that Carneri is notable then anyone who made any recording on (e.g.) Zonophone is notable - this is certainly not the intention of the criterion cited). Carneri's life and death are completely without sources or citations. The long list of (apparenlty) newspaper clippings without any insight or reference as to their contents, and yet listed as 'references', is useless and pointless in a WP article and does not support notability. Smerus (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck duplicate !vote; the nomination is considered your delete !vote. See WP:AFDLIST. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO. Carneri was recording during the first decade of the 20th century during the beginning years of recording technology. She was recording for major record labels of the day because these were among the very first recording companies in exsistance. Records created during this time could often only fit one song; so in essence she did record "albums". Criterion 5 should be applied through the historical lense of the time at which she was alive and recording. It wouldn't be fare to judge her achievements in the same way that one would judge a contemporary artist. She was a pioneer in a burgeoning industry.4meter4 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NRV -"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." I think this negates any 'acoustical pioneer' argument where there is no attention from secondary sources. Also, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Notability_of_recordings - which clearly sets out the criteria, none of which are met by the present article.--Smerus (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Smerus. Maybe an argument could be made based on historicism that *any* recording artist of the acoustical period (1895-1925) is notable, but until that argument is made, I recommend delete. - kosboot (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found a blog that cites these sources:

Marienbader Tagblatt June 10, 1898, June 10, 1898 Pilsner Tagblatt, January 20, 1905February 3, 1905 and March 2, 1904, October 3, 1903 Fremden Blatt Vienna, November 8, 1899April 17, 1906 and August 1, 1897; Deutches volksblattapril 9, 1907; Westungaische grembote July 17, 1898 Egerer Zeitung June 25, 1898 and March 11, 19051907 Oftauer Zeitung January 12, 1899 Neuie Freie Presse, Vienna, July 11, 1898, September 2, 1898, February 9, 1898, December 12, 1903, October 14, 1905. Saaren Zeitung April 9, 1904 Das kleine Blatt July 2, 1932 Badener Zeitung December 9, 1931, January 10, 1932 Orsovaer wochenblatt, July 3, 1898

So plenty of notability there. I just have to get my hands on some of this, and I will add it to the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those sources are the same ones listed in the article. Nearly all of those papers are provincial except for the Neue Freie Presse (which is digitized but not OCRed). Until the author (a descendant) does some research, I'd say a blog is an excellent place for this info. - kosboot (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see they are in the article, too. Well, imho, if she were a singer today with 12 references, even if in local papers, we wouldn't be questioning her notability. I don't think we should ax her just because those references are 100 years old. Let's see if we can get some quotes from these.
  • I've provided links to the digitized issues of Neue Freie Presse on the article's talk page. If you can find them.... - kosboot (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a line for the first reference I could find - the line I added is about the same length as the entire source. - kosboot (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can promise you that some PhD student in music history will thank us for keeping this article around. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - leaning keep because she seems to have had a notable recording career, at the very least. However, there aren't any sources verifying the biographical details. How do we know she died in the concentration camp? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments. First, the guideline on the notability of classical recordings is a red herring. We aren't discussing the notability of Zonophone 78rpm 10-inch single-sided pressing with a catalog number of 88424 (I'm making that up, but by way of example). Certainly it is extremely unlikely that any one of her cylinders or 78rpm discs are notable individually, but that does not mean that collectively they give no indication of notability. Quite the opposite. Regarding the newspapers, I am very unfamiliar with which German publications would be widely read, but I would think that Radio Tag, Deutsches Volksblatt, and Badener Zeitung would all be more than small-town-local. What I can't tell, of course, is if any of these have substantial information about Carneri, or if they just have half-a-sentence that says "Amalia Carneri sang two selections". 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that no one has yet presented any evidence that makes her recording career notable by the WP standards. It is therefore quite incorrect to say that 'she seems to have had a notable recording career, at the very least'. And as is pointed out there is still no verification of any biographical details.--Smerus (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable. Satisfies GNG (which is not interested in whether sources are 'provincial' or any similar nonsense) and the spirit of criteria 5 of MUSICBIO (due to the large number of singles). If it does not satisfy the letter of criteria 5, it is because criteria 5 contains an incompetent WP:RANDYish drafting error due to albums not existing at the time due to technological limitations. Accordingly deletion based on the said drafting error would violate WP:IAR, the main policy of the project. Since policies trump guidelines, you cannot beat IAR by invoking notability guidelines, because they are only guidelines, and IAR is a policy. I don't think you could come up with any argument for deletion that does not require extreme wikilawyering to sustain it. James500 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO. The article could use some work, but meets the basic criteria to avoid deletion. 1bandsaw (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I now find the bulk of the article seems taken verbatim from this blog, which is dated November 20 2015 (before appearance of article on WP). Therefore WP:COPYVIO needs to be considered.--Smerus (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The copyvio that Smerus noted needs to be rectified - blanking the page if necessary. Barring the copyvio issue, I don't advocate deleting the article, though. The newspaper sources could very well have significant coverage. Since the article is using those to support its notability, can we confirm what type of coverage, routine or significant, those clippings give>?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote it. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no copyvio because the blog owner wrote the Wikipedia article. Please note that the names are the same: Nancypolk1 and Nancy Polk. By the way Nancypolk1 needs a notification on her Talk page that her article is being AfDed. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant news coverage for its era and recordings released by major labels. Plus, the article creator is willing to provide more sources. Neodop (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It was easy to document that she had a long career performing in a number of venues, and the number of press reviews and of recordings are large for the time. Her transportation to Theresienstadt and death at Terezin are also documented; I found and added a reference from a Holocaust database. So the article does not lack verifiability. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I congratulate the various editors on the way this article has been improved and sourced and am happy to withdraw the AfD. I hope the remaining areas of the article which still require sourcing can be appropriately dealt with. -Smerus (talk) 14:13, 28 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 delete as a hoax. This was tagged as an A7, but I've deleted it as a hoax given the situation. As stated below, a search brought up nothing to show that any of the claims in the article are legitimate. I have yet to hear back from Time Warner, but if CNNYAW was legitimate there would be record of them on their official website and the CNNYAW site wouldn't be hosted on WordPress. The article itself gave conflicting claims of when the site was established and it's unusual that a CNN affiliate would not have a listing or some sort of attention somewhere, especially if they are airing on CNN International. There was an award listed but from what I can see, the award does not exist. While there is a CNNYAW website, this appears to be a hoax in the way it's described here and I have to assume that they are an unaffiliated site that is trying to seem more official by claiming an association that they do not have. Now even if the site is officially vetted by CNN and part of Time Warner, there is no coverage out there to show that it would be notable enough to merit its own page. If there is evidence found that would prove the claims are true (and this would have to be official, via CNN or Time Warner's website), at most this would warrant a brief mention on the main CNN page but again, there's more evidence out there to show that it's not affiliated rather than it is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • UPDATE: I have heard back from CNN/Time Warner and they have confirmed that CNNYAW is not affiliated with them. I have salted the article and if there are attempts to re-create this under any other name it should be speedy deleted as a hoax or G4 re-creation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CNNYAW[edit]

CNNYAW (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:GNG. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Unable to find any reliable independent sources for this.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I remember seeing this just before another admin speedied it as spam. This could probably be speedied as spam again, but I'd prefer that this go through a full AfD instead. Offhand I'm not really sure that this would pass notability guidelines, especially given that the link to the CNNYAW site goes to Wordpress rather than to CNN itself, which is what you'd expect if this was owned by Time Warner. I'll look to see what sourcing I can find, but offhand this looks like it's probably either a hoax or something along the lines of the iCNN page. If this is either of those situations, I'd like to extend a word of caution: Time Warner goes after this sort of thing pretty viciously if someone misrepresents themselves in relation to their businesses. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like I was able to pull up a cached version, so there was something there in the past, but it's since been removed. This could be for a variety of reasons, one of which is that Time Warner made the site yank it down. I'm finding nothing to show that this is actually an official part of CNN or Time Warner at all. I'm going to e-mail them and ask for verification about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm now fairly convinced that this is likely a hoax or at the very least, far from what this article is claiming that it is. I found only one news story that actually mentions the organization. However at the same time none of the article's claims mesh with what I found on the Internet. It claims that it is part of Time Warner, has millions of readers, made over a million dollars in revenue in less than a year, and has won an award. With these claims you'd assume that they'd have a fairly visible Internet presence. However a search for the website brings up very little. Their Alexa ranking is abysmally low, which goes against their claims of millions of readers. Also telling is that the search brought up no mention of the organization in official Time Warner channels or websites, and if they're running on one of their television channels (CNN International) then there would be a mention of them somewhere. A search on the CNN website brings up nothing either. I tried searching for the award, but found nothing that mentions this award at all except for the Wikipedia article and the acronym NMA is fairly general at best and doesn't fit any of the award giving NMAs that pop up. Then there's the body of the article, which is written to give off the impression that it was launched in the 80s - which clashes with the claims in the infobox that this site is very recently launched. At most I think that this is likely something someone came up with on their own time and tried to use the CNN name without permission. If they were part of Time Warner, there'd be some mention of them somewhere and they wouldn't be using a WordPress blog site to host their news outlet. The website now comes up like it should, but the fact is that for at least a brief point in time it came up as a WordPress site and you can still see the WordPress logo in the top left corner. Again, Time Warner wouldn't use another company to host their material, or at least it'd be very unlikely that they would. Unless I get an email back from Time Warner saying that this is an official site, I have to assume that this is a hoax as it's written. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked the editor for 31 hours for repeatedly removing the AfD notice despite warnings. If they are an unofficial site and are misrepresenting their affiliation with Time Warner/CNN, the block will become permanent. I think that this is likely an unofficial group that was put together, but not an official site in the way it's being represented here. If they are official and I get confirmation with Time Warner, I'll post that here. At the very least, however, the site appears to be non-notable regardless of whether or not it's part of Time Warner. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually we could probably extend it to an indef for spam, given that they seem to have liberally sprinkled their website throughout Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something else I noticed is that their Facebook page claims that they won a 2014 award, which I can also not find any record of and which also clashes with the article's claim that the website launched in 2015. This really, really looks bad. If by some chance this is legit, which looks extremely unlikely at this point, there's some serious work that needs to be done because all of this reflects very poorly on CNN. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:43, 27 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rishiraj Sen[edit]

Rishiraj Sen (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 yet notable per WP:AUTHOR. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just a few mentions in blogs and user-generated content like Goodreads. Changed prod to AFD after article creator created a fork at Rishiraj sen before the prod had a chance to run its course. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the page creator may be Rishiraj Sen. Anyways the person is not notable based on evidence at hand.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 30 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 19:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Allison[edit]

Brenda Allison (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:N, seems to be more of a (pasted?) essay on pseudoscientific nonsense, but maybe I'm missing something. Author objected to a PROD.  superβεεcat  07:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. This article has been worked on extensively for half a month and it is still incomprehensible and unencyclopedic. Citobun (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can only find brief coverage in tabloids. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author of that page needs help from a professional. If you can see this, please consider it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With every edit this article dips closer to Patent Nonsense. - superβεεcat  04:55, 28 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 13:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba Effect[edit]

Bubba Effect (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)

Appears to be WP:Neologism reddogsix (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Use seems limited to one program. Add to its article as a note if needed (as in merge). --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from a few brief mentions at blogs (and a few self-published pieces by Glenn Beck), I could not find reliable secondary sources that talk about this term. There are a handful of articles that have used the term, but absent sources that talk about the term, its meaning, its use, etc., this article qualifies for deletion pursuant to WP:Neologism (see also WP:TRIVIALMENTION for some of the other sources that mention the term in passing). That said, I am willing to change my vote if other editors can show me reliable secondary sources that talk about the term. Until then, I think deletion is warranted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism with no properly sourced indication of any real currency in real world usage. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks to fail WP:NEO — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a weird concept (why would people stage an armed uprising against a government on behalf of someone they think is a fool who did the wrong thing?), and there's no reason given the above to think it's notable Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as some insignificant made-up stuff. SNOW already. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm telling you guys, we're gonna see the Bubba effect someday and regret deleting this. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unimportant, and coined to be nothing more than an insult for use by the condescending wings of both the extreme right and the extreme left in America. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:22, 27 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 closed as an error. It is not necessary to separately nominate an article and its talk page for two separate deletion discussions — if the article gets deleted the talk page will get automatically deleted with it, and if the article gets kept the talk page ain't going anywhere either. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bubba Effect[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:Neologism. reddogsix (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • reddogsix, I think you meant to place the AFD template on the article, rather than the talk page. If you meant to delete the article, then I agree that this may qualify for deletion per WP:Neologism. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:02, 26 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 Jimfbleak, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridgeshire Community Foundation[edit]

Cambridgeshire Community Foundation (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)

Completely unsourced, reads like an advertisement, and doesn't establish why the organization is notable. Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 05:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 05:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:36, 26 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 delete. Speedy deleted 22:10, 26 January 2016 by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs) - (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, United States presidential election, 2016) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of the United States presidential candidates, 2016[edit]

Political positions of the United States presidential candidates, 2016 (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)

Duplicates information United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016, Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016. I don't see how this article can add additional information that is not in those other 3 articles. As it stands, the current article is only about third-party candidates. Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could have given it the time of the day if most positions hadn't been "unknown". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK of information already included at United States presidential election, 2016. Per WP:NOPAGE, it is more appropriate to delete this spinoff article and instead present the information within the context of the article for the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not even quite sure what this is supposed to be, but I certainly don't see anything that isn't already covered or better covered in other existing articles. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing useful to see. Should have been speedy deleted, tbh. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @QEDK:, you can put a speedy tag on the article if you want. I'm just not sure which criteria it meets for speedy deletion. Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CSD#A10, since you said it duplicates existing article content. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Added speedy tag on article. Natg 19 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Notecardforfree.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced as well as inaccurate title, since the article does not include positions of either Democrat or Republican candidates. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 20:37, 26 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, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stanimir Marinov[edit]

Stanimir Marinov (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 article has been created recently by a now blocked sockmaster (not at the time of creation), but I felt AfD was better than CSD in case it was actually notable. However, I can not see it passing WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL and there is no source supports the claim of playing for national team. Also this article is very poorly written and only a list of stats, even though that is no good reason for deletion. Qed237 (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator – I withdraw my nomination as the basketballer player apparently has played international matches and adriatic league seems enough for notability. Although this article needs a lot of improving, it is notable so thid AfD can now be closed. Qed237 (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CSD G5 would not have applied in this case, as the creator was not blocked/banned at the time that this article was created.—Bagumba (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Participation in the First Category leagues and Balkan leagues, also part of Bulgaria national team.--Mondiad (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 20:59, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_January_26&oldid=1142622653"