Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 June 26 June >

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. Presumably they will be recreated when more sourcing becomes available, but for now the consensus is not to have an article. MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Roadblock (December 2016)[edit]

WWE Roadblock (December 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)
Backlash (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No Mercy (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable event lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I vote to NOT delete it because the event was just confirmed a few days ago. Just as every other WWE pay-per-view event has its own page, there is no reason why this too should not have its own page. The closer we get to the event, the more references and articles will be added to it. OldSkool01 (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three – AFAIK, the idea of brand-exclusive PPVs is still complete speculation. Apart from renaming Night of Champions to Clash of Champions, there is no confirmation of any change from the WWE. Sceptre (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even online ticket websites are putting up sales for the events, it's confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanOfG&P (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ticketmaster aren't selling any tickets to any PPVs beyond Clash of Champions. Is there something you know that the WWE's official ticketing partner doesn't? Sceptre (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three - There is nothing anywhere confirming these events from WWE, the arenas, or Ticketmaster. This is only speculation and has no reliable sources to support it. JTP (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, that very, very brief listing is not all the proof that is needed. There needs to be be independent, verifiable references that support the article. The current support is trivial in nature and does not meet what is needed to be included in Wikipedia. Also, saying that page can be deleted, but will just be recreated does not help you cause and is taken as a threat that you will not abide by Wikipedia guidelines. That statement does not help your cause. I suggest you concentrate on finding better references and add those to the article. reddogsix (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that there's nothing on the Sky Italia website to suggest the three nominated PPVs are happening. We're also ignoring the verifiable Sky Sports UK sources that TLC is taking place on December 18 in favour of a claim it's taking place on December 4 according to a mythical Sky Italia source that we can't verify. Sceptre (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Independent coverage from multiple reliable sources--Pro Wrestling Torch, Canoe.ca, Prowrestling.net...what's the problem here? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The problem here is some people do not understand how WWE's ppv pages work. When an event is first announced months in advance, there will not be that many references for it yet. As we get closer to the event date, there will be plenty of more notable references available. That is why I said if these pages are deleted now, they will just be created again as we get closer to the events. This is how ppv event pages have worked for years. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There will not be that many references for it yet". So basically you're saying that they're not notable. Wrestling booking is famously in a state of flux, as evidenced in the past week where the original plan to have the Roman Reigns hold the belt until SummerSlam had to be aborted because the he failed the Wellness Policy. Until we get confirmation that events are happening directly from the WWE or their broadcast/ticketing partners, saying that events are happening are pure speculation. Once you get to the fifth report that Finn Balor is coming up to the main roster Any Day Now, you remember that smark blogs often don't know shit. Sceptre (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, I should quote directly from WP:CRYSTAL: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.". A smark blog quoting a mythical, inaccessible Sky Italia source is not "well documented" by any stretch of the imagination. Sceptre (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Digging even further into this, I note that PWI weren't provided the list by Sky Italia, but by a third party who runs his own wrestling smark blog which doesn't even mention the supposed upcoming events either. Sceptre (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of things. First, PWInsider.com is not a "Smark" blog. Second, these shows ARE notable because there's already a source confirming it here: http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=102934 and I will add a second source confirming it here: http://www.f4wonline.com/daily-updates/daily-update-wwe-split-brand-ppvs-roh-ppv-aries-joe-and-nakamura-debut-215206 PWInsider and the Wrestling Observer are the 2 most respected wrestling news sites in the world. Furthermore, Dave Meltzer reported on the PPV schedule change in the Observer Newsletter days before PWInsider posted their article. Also, when the schedule was first announced, sites like Ticketmaster were still advertising Night Of Champions and not Clash Of Champions. It wasn't until after the new schedule was reported that Night Of Champions was changed to Clash Of Champions on Ticketmaster. So the schedule that was reported by Meltzer and PWInsider was correct about the Night Of Champions name change, but you're saying they are not right about the rest of the schedule. The second link I posted also makes no mention of Sky Italy, so that means Dave himself independently confirmed the story with WWE. And if this schedule were in fact not true, then WWE themselves would have denied it, just like the story about Kurt Angle coming back to WWE floated around this past week and WWE shot down the story. WWE themselves can't confirm any of these shows yet until they do the draft episode on July 19th because it would give away their storylines. Here's the bottom line, PWInsider.com and WrestlingObserver.com are used as legitimate official sources all over WP. Do we now go to each and every wrestling-related page that uses those sites as sources and remove all of those references because you feel they're "Smark" blogs? OldSkool01 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't have the faintest idea how Wikipedia actually works if you think "it must be true because it hasn't been confirmed as false" passes our standards for verifiability. Indeed, if this is how wrestling articles work, then there is clearly a lot of work to be done to overhaul the entire set. In the case of PWI, there is no way that it passes as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes if it's reporting as fact that WWE have taken certain corporate decisions based on what some self-employed blogger with no affiliations to Sky Italia or the WWE has said to them (and incidentally, I find any website that displays spam ads to an adblock user to be very skeevy). In the case of Meltzer, I would be more likely to accept him as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes (because he's very often right and his network of backstage sources is legendary), but you know as well as I do that he admits his own limitations as a journalist for a form of entertainment that still has a deep affection for its insular carnival roots, and recognises that certain corporate or booking decisions are always subject to change at a later point. Note that he says there are apparently going to be these PPVs, not that they will definitely happen. Even so, there are limitations even if we accept Meltzer as a reliable source; for example, we can't really use him as a source for the WWE calendar per WP:CRYSTAL, nor can we use his confirmation of the rumour that Roman Reigns failed the Wellness test before Money in the Bank because of WP:BLP issues. Waiting until WWE or its partners confirm these events are taking place – which I personally believe will be the case – is just compliant with Wikipedia policy. Sceptre (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually do know exactly how Wikipedia works as I've been editing mainly the WWE ppv and WWE Network lists(which I created) for many years, even when I just used an IP. I've been involved in many heated discussions during that time, especially when I feel strongly about the subject, such as which shows actually did or did not air on PPV/the Network. This discussion we're having now is not high on the importance list for me because we're talking about future events. So if you feel these pages should be deleted now and then brought back in a couple of weeks/months when we have more sources, then I won't waste my energy on fighting it. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that the Roadblock event listed above is now at WWE Roadblock (December 2016), to distinguish it from WWE Roadblock, which apparently refers to the March 2016 event of that name, and which is sourced and referenced and whatnot. No comment on the merits, as such - except to note that we're not supposed to get information quickly, we're supposed to get it correct and referenced. So if we don't have good sources yet, we need to hold off on articles for these events. Might be that they can be userfied for the interim. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three. Wikipedia is not a second-hand rumour mill. Str1977 (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Which is great because these aren't rumors. PWInsider.com and WrestlingObserver.com are both listed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources on the list of reliable verified wrestling sources. Dave Meltzer of the Observer even said "...there has been talk of doing individual Raw and Smackdown Pay Per Views/WWE Network Special Events similar to what they did during the last time they split brands. Until now, that was purely speculation. The PPV schedule that has been going around is legit." Which again means he confirmed it with WWE. OldSkool01 (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all three I've always hated creating these stubs months in advance. These in particular fail WP:GNG and contain no substantive information. The sources barely confirm its planned existence, that's not enough for GNG (WP:BUTITEXISTS). These stubs are almost entirely useless, anything noteworthy can be merged and redirected to the main articles.LM2000 (talk) 01:58, 2 July 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Tzortzis[edit]

Hamza Tzortzis (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)

Procedural nomination. After a quick Google search, I believe this person to be notable. It may seem strange nominating this for deletion and then give a reason for keeping it, but my legitimately removed A7 tag has already been illegitimately restored once, and this could descend into an edit war if I don't nominate this regardless. Adam9007 (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD:

Jeff5102 (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It looks to me like he is remarkable for being hate monger and nothing more, which to me demonstrates a lack of notability. That being said, it may simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep Tzortzis craves publicity and calls himself such things as an "international public speaker" but he is actually not notable at all. He is neither a theologian -- something else he likes to call himself (unless just being religious and talking about it qualifies one as a theologian) -- nor a sheikh or a cleric. He is certainly not a scholar, let alone a notable one. He is just a speaker on Islam. That might make him notable, of course, if there is a lot of reliable, third-party media coverage (see for example Zakir Naik). But there is not. Okay I'm convinced by the sources mentioned by Mr rnddude. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a self-publicist who overstates his own importance, however, he clearly meets the GNG. In addition to the sources in the article there are these:
That makes nine different RSs with articles about him. I am not adding them to the article at present as it is a battleground. All that matters is whether reliable sources are talking about him. They are. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not all RS. The Daily Mail is a tabloid and can't be used on Wikipedia. Pinknews is also unacceptable. IBT's story is salacious personal gossip. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment of the Daily Mail. Pinknews is a reliable source, please see our article on them. IBT is also a RS and it doesn't matter for the purposes of the GNG that coverage is salacious. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail is a tabloid (as its own Wikipedia article confirms) and the WP:BLP rules state: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." So any particular claim about Tzortzis made only in the DM (ie that Tzortzis advocated child marriage or wife beating) can't be added. Please show me evidence that Pinknews is a RS. Maybe other editors will offer a view, please. And personal gossip about him being on the Ashley Madison cheating site can't be included even from a reliable source. The BLP guidelines state: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Reference Reliability (reply to George Custer's Sabre) Huh, I just learned something today. The Daily Mail is apparently definitionally a "tabloid" because it uses smaller paper size than "broadsheets". However, the article on the daily mail is far less clear as to whether or not it engages in tabloid journalism... the tabloid journalism article itself references the daily mail as being different from "supermarket tabloids" and clarifies that in British English, "tabloids" tends to mean being more politically charged rather than necessarily having lower journalistic integrity. All this said, I'm not sure the Daily Mail ought to be excluded from our list of reliable sources for notability establishment.
The point is moot in this particular case, however, as Pinknews definitely looks reliable to me... single purpose focused, but still with high editorial standards and a wide reach. Aside from Pinknews, I think there's little question to the reliability of The Week and News.com.au... those are obviously reliable. But it's definitely an interesting point about the Daily Mail regardless... I wonder if we should do an RFC about it? Fieari (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I inserted a link to the previous AfD of 2011. The last five years, Tzortzis gained some fame, but I'll leave it to others if that is enough.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Arguably borderline. I am aware of Hamza Tzortis due to his debate with Lawrence Krauss. He's also mentioned in several books, here [1], here [2] and here [3] among others, although some of these appear at a glance to be dubious sources. I don't like the man, nor the ideas he represents, but, he appears to meet WP:GNG. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG for being the focused topic of multiple bylined secondary sources. Ironically, I could possibly accept the argument that some of these sources are not eligible for inclusion in the article themselves per WP:BLP, HOWEVER, inclusion in the article is not a requirement to survive AfD, merely existence. Note that I'm not actually accepting the argument that these sources are not eligible, merely arguing that even in the case of successfully arguing their exclusion from the article, that they still firmly establish notability, due to their pervasiveness (there are a large number of RS's reporting on him) and extensiveness (each of the RS's are devoting quite a few words to him). Fieari (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Boiardi[edit]

George Boiardi (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 all athletic notability guidelines and BLP1E. NOTMEMORIAL also applies. John from Idegon (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:02, 26 June 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 Dhupchanchia Upazila. czar 19:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dupchanchia Model Government Primary School[edit]

Dupchanchia Model Government Primary School (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)

Was redirected to settlement, redirect reverted. Non notable school per SCHOOLOUTCOMES and school notability guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Government school in Bangladesh have a clear source to notability. ~ Moheen (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Moheen Reeyad, can you please explain how this article meets either of the standards set forth in the nomination, or GNG even? John from Idegon (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not notable a government school? Though, it have no sufficient sources, but in English Wikipedia there are thousands of article have no single source. This is a 40-year-old school and in 2003 received medal and certificate from the Prime Minister of Bangladesh due to best role in keeping the district level of the country. ~ Moheen (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dupchanchia Upazila per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If there has been a problem in the past with people expanding the redirect, consider protecting it as well. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect. I did a little searching, and didn't find anything that convinced me this meets WP:WPSCH/AG or WP:GNG. My search wasn't very extensive, hence the weak modifier. The main reason I'm commenting here is to support the idea that redirect to Dupchanchia Upazila is preferable to a straight delete, for the reasons given in WP:ATD and WP:WPSCH/AG. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS, page protection should really be a last resort. I don't see evidence of sufficiently sustained vandalism to justify protection. If it really gets to be a problem in the future, it can always be done later. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 3 July 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phulchand Prithvi Raj[edit]

Phulchand Prithvi Raj (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 from page's creator. Subject lacks notability and the page reads like a vanity page Meatsgains (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:49, 25 June 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 Anamanaguchi#2006.E2.80.932009: Power Supply and Dawn Metropolis. Merge has been completed. KaisaL (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Power Supply (EP)[edit]

Power Supply (EP) (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:NALBUMS. No reviews, no press. Released on an indie label. No evidence of radio rotation. Doesn't inherit notability for having a song as a former theme song for a defunct podcast. MSJapan (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Whilst I agree that the album is not inherently notable, the band that released it is, so it would probably be better if it were merged into the bands page and then ""deleted"" --Joseon Empire (talk) 19:42, 03 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to Anamanaguchi § EPs, which will improve the latter article. It's received some minimal coverage (e.g. [6]), but not nearly enough to qualify a standalone article. North America1000 15:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's nothing actual to merge, they are all the same contents, nothing else different and thus if tagged for merge, this will either stay like that or simply be redirected which anyone could've made. Thus there's nothing actually considerable to merge. SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – @SwisterTwister: The merge target I suggested above (Anamanaguchi § EPs) presently only has the name of the album on the page and the date of release, and nothing else. It's unclear how one could assess this as that "they are all the same contents", because the content is not identical whatsoever. Was the merge target suggested even viewed? Perhaps this is an error duplicate copy/paste !vote from another discussion, or of your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single + Remix Collections, which is verbatim to this one. However, the assessment there is also incorrect relative to the content of the two pages. The !votes in this and the other discussion are only one minute apart. Requesting clarification; perhaps an error occurred? North America1000 22:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:48, 25 June 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AO-62 assault rifle[edit]

AO-62 assault rifle (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)
AO-63 assault rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Slostin machine gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Soviet/Russian firearms. Only in-article references are in Russian so I'm not sure what to make of them; failed to find reliable sources, though a Russian-language search may help. Created by a User:Ctway sock. ansh666 03:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 03:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 03:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ansh666 03:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...one of a kind prototype, nothing more than firearms trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As we can't read Russian, we can't determine if the Russian sources are good or not. This means we can't delete until we get somebody who can qualify the sources. We need a failure to meet notability guidelines in order to delete it, not just based on a hunch or personal preference. DeVerm (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the source on the Slostin article is a dead link to a primary source; the other two are Russian print magazines, and, though I don't have access to the articles themselves, from the translated titles they aren't very promising (likely just trivial mentions). ansh666 00:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I don't think we should delete articles on things that we "think are likely". We need facts. DeVerm (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is notability. And, we have only one Russian language source to prove that this weapon even exists. All of the information that we have about this weapon is traced back to this one source. There are no other sources anywhere to establish notability. A lone excerpt, from a single book, that can only be found in the basement of a Moscow library, is not enough to establish notability. If this were article about toys or any other subject, it would have been deleted years ago. However, because it's about Russian made guns people assume that it must be notable. Well, it's not, it's just one of hundreds of failed prototype rifles that the Russian have made since WW2.--RAF910 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RAF910: As you see, your statement that "there are no other sources anywhere" is incorrect as Thomas Lu just posted another source above. The source we have, plus a second that now comes up, makes it probable that there are enough sources to establish notability. It does not matter that these are Russian sources. DeVerm (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said again..." All of the information that we have about this weapon is traced back to this one source." Also, Thomas Lu most recent cited sources make no mention of the AO-62 and refer only to the Slostin (Gatling gun type) machine gun--RAF910 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well RAF910, I did read what you said and I even quoted it... you just can not be sure that there are no other sources because if you would, your name would be Q, not RAF910. DeVerm (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is built on references, you have yet to provide a single reference to support you claims. All you have to do, is provide a handful of references and you win the argument. It that simple. However, please make certain that the references you provide actually mention the AO-62. The Thomas Lu references that cited before make no mention of the AO-62. Also, the references have to establish notability, not just a listing, not a footnote, not a picture with a caption, but an actual article stating why the AO-62 is notable.--RAF910 (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not replying to what I write, so this discussion is not helpful. FWIW: I don't have to provide any references to support my claims; I have tried to explain how I (and presumably others) am not qualified to make a determination as we can't read Russian. It feels like you are replying to somebody else. I have yet to !vote but did not work this one out yet. DeVerm (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK...As always, when dealing with Russian articles confusion abounds...Therefore, in the interest of better clarity...We have three completely different weapons here...So, we should start over again.

AO-62 assault rifle[edit]

DELETE...one of a kind prototype, nothing more than firearms trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AO-63 assault rifle[edit]

DELETE...one of a kind prototype, nothing more than firearms trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slostin machine gun[edit]

DELETE...one of a kind prototype, nothing more than firearms trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these articles. I can not find reliable secondary sources and none have been offered by others who searched. These articles fail our notability guideline. DeVerm (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm not seeing better at the Russia Wiki and overall there's still nothing convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the subjects do not meet WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ČZW-40[edit]

ČZW-40 (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)
ČZW-762 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ČZW-127 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ČZW-9PS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ČZW-438 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ČZW-9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
RAG-30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ČZW-556 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Czech firearms all sourced to primary source broken links; no reliable secondary sources found (though a Czech-language search may turn up something). All created by User:Ctway socks some 5 years ago. Some may be valid redirects to related weapons, but I'd like them all to be considered first. ansh666 03:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 03:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 03:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ansh666 03:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...one of a kind prototype, nothing more than firearms trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • How can it be militaria when it is in prototype phase? DeVerm (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The links seem repairable, example: [7] but it still is a primary source and I did not find a reliable secondary source yet, but this list is long and I can only check results are are not in Czech. DeVerm (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only primary sources come up for me in English and nobody offered reliable secondary references so must conclude all of these articles fail to meet out notability guideline. DeVerm (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and there's still nothing for the needed substance for their own independent articles. SwisterTwister talk 08:42, 1 July 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 San Pedro Sula. MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of neighborhoods in San Pedro Sula[edit]

List of neighborhoods in San Pedro Sula (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)
Try Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL adapting the search's quotes so it is "San Pedro Sula" barrios which does a lot better, and
try Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. And try searching on each specific barrio on its own. --doncram 05:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the list was eviscerated in 2012 as unsourced, there's nothing left here that isn't already in San Pedro Sula. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, as it adds nothing to the information at San Pedro Sula, and there's no reason to believe that there's anything more to be said. While an old revision of this page contains a bit more content, a list of neighborhoods for every city is pure WP:LISTCRUFT, and I see no particular reason as to why this city warrants such a list. If anything, expand the corresponding section in the main article. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just restored the article to the substantial 2012 version (saving the AFD header and the reference about four quarters). This gives orienting information at the top and then lists the colonias and barrios of the city. This is a major sized city that was huge already (800 residents) in 1590, before any permanent non-Spanish Western colonial settlement was established in the U.S. (Saint Augustine, Florida was founded in 1565.) With population 1 million to 1,445,598 now, and as the second largest city in Honduras, it is not at all like some other AFD(s?) recently on neighborhoods of ridiculously tiny settlement(s) (like 15,000 population). Let's avoid U.K.-U.S. bias and let this be.
I am perhaps more inclined than others to feel this is useful stuff, because I recently depended upon the corresponding city section and subdivisions article for a different Spanish colonial city, San Juan, Puerto Rico, namely its San Juan, Puerto Rico#Districts section and its Subdivisions of San Juan, Puerto Rico. I needed these to make sense out of the stated locations of historic sites I was writing about, which we include in Wikipedia because Puerto Rico is part of the U.S., while it will take us longer to get around to covering historic sites in Honduras as well. San Juan, with population 395,326, is less than half the size of San Pedro Sula.
This isn't just "Other stuff exists". It is not listcruft. It is obvious that eventually subdivisions of a major city will have to be covered. We have to know that all administration of San Pedro Sula is not done at the city level ignoring any subdivisions, that major city newspaper coverage (in Spanish, like of La Prensa (Honduras)) of crime, recreation, life, business, whatever reports on locations within neighborhoods in the city. We have to know that maps exist, and even histories explicitly about many of the barrios must exist, and development plans, and so on. To "Keep" we need to know reliable sources exist; we do not have to have them in hand. And there has not been any question on the accuracy of any of the information, anyhow. --doncram 04:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs to be developed to map out the barrios and to say something about each of them, like el barrio Suyapa (News about el barrio suyapa), Barrio el Benque (e.g. News in barrio el banque) (which is perhaps the main business district?) and probably lots more about Barrio el Centro.
  • This is wp:GEOLAND basics: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." (direct quote, emphasis in original) --doncram 05:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barrio Chamelecón is described in New York Times as a "warren of modest cement-block houses painted in now chipped and fading pastels", subject to pressure of street gangs, in Randal C. Archibold (August 2, 2014). "Hope Dwindles for Hondurans Living in Peril"..
  • The 1936 book Monografía geográfica e histórica de San Pedro Sula: IV centenario de su fundación (236 pages) has section or table: "Poblacion del municipio de San Pedro Sula, distribuida en barrios, aldeas y caserios" (starting on page 17).
  • The 169-page 1997 book Adobe, madera y ladrillo en la arquitectura de San Pedro Sula: un vistazo actual a la arquitectura creada entre 1900 y 1950 mentions barrio benque on its page 17 (which I can't see).
  • I'll stop here. --doncram 06:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Colonel Wilhelm Klink posits our having someone who could add prose so that all or most of the named neighborhoods would seem interesting if covered in the San Pedro Sula article, but we don't. It's too long, and not well enough developed, to insert there. Creating individual articles for each neighborhood can't be done by they or me now either, and it's best to add info about neighborhoods to the list-article until there is sufficient material to split them out. So best option is to keep the list and let it grow. --doncram 03:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you misunderstood my comment; I did not mean adding prose for each neighborhood at the main article, but adding an overview of the neighborhoods in general, much like the blurb currently at this list, to the proper section. I've constructed a prototype at my sandbox by copy-pasting and combining this list with the appropriate section; would you mind taking a look at it? As for "no one to create the articles", I'll be glad to create articles for those neighborhoods which I can find suitable references for. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 18:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...And actually, some of these already have articles; the prefixes (such as "Barrio" or "Colonia") cause them to appear as red links. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 18:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which neighborhoods have articles? I don't see any linked from anywhere. It sure would help if you would get them linked from the article. Prompted by your request, I took a shot at adding wikilinks and editing down the "blurb" that was in the article and was still pretty much the same as the version in your sandbox, to get it to the current version.
The point remains that there needs to be something about each neighborhood in a central article, before each has to be split out, and there's virtually nothing there yet, so it is premature to count on existence of separate neighborhood articles. And some information on each neighborhood would be kept in the central article.
About moving the blurb/overview about the organization of the city to the city article, I agree it is mostly not about neighborhoods per se, but it is prefatory (is that a word?) to discussion of neighborhoods' locations, and I would prefer for it to be kept here. I see little point to it being in the city article, because the quadrants it defines and the organization it explains are not used later in the city article. And there is very little after "The city is further divided..." which would remain here, otherwise. Only a short summary, like just "The city has numerous divisions" with link to this article is appropriate in the city article. This article with its list cannot be merged to the city article, as it is mostly not ready for prime time and at least the list part would naturally be deleted there. This AFD is effectively about Keeping or completely Deleting the list. I have argued above that the topic of "neighborhoods of San Pedro Sula" is valid because sources exist about it. And we have a start with the list.
For the links, my mistake; it appeared to me that some entries (such as Concepcion and Las Palmas) had articles based on the blue links, but this was just an oversight on my part; I apologize for the rush in judgment. At any rate, the expansions you've made to the list have made it much better, and similar expansions (e.g., with subsections based on location within the city) should be undertaken on the main article, regardless of the result of this discussion. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav Turčin[edit]

Tomislav Turčin (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 by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He had considerable success in the U19 national team and has signed up for the top division HNK Rijeka. According to the reference, he's preparing to play in their first team for the 2016/17 season. Why delete a reasonable article that we're, in all likelihood, have to recreate in a month of two? No such user (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. @No such user: the reason the article should be deleted is that we don't create articles in anticipation of notability. Yes he is in pre season training, but as of now he has not done anything considered notable by a subject specific guideline and no sources have been put forward that indicate significant non-routine coverage for any other achievements. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fenix down: The guy has been noted as a prospective player, has received non-trivial media coverage and scored a goal for the U19 national team. [8][9][10][11]. That's about above the GNG bar. Subject guidelines are just guidelines, and WP:IAR is a policy. While I don't care much about the subject, deleting an article about a player who's in all likelihood going to formally fulfill the WP:NFOOTBALL requirement in September to me seems like an exercise in WP:BURO, WP:CRYSTAL notwithstanding. No such user (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the links you posted, I am not convinced there's any real GNG there:
1 is a very brief general article on the promotion of a number of youth players at the end of last season. There is a couple of lines on Turcin and it should be noted from his WP aritcle that he did not actually end up playing. There's nothing here that can be used to create an article. youth players get promoted to first teams at the end of seasons all the time, and very often, as here, they don't end up playing. It's not a notable achievement.
2 is routine transfer talk. The focus of the article is actually on Cibalia not the player himself, there's essentially nothing there bar the fact that he signed that could be used in this article
3 This is a match report on the Croatia v Scotland U19 match, not an article on the player. There is again no significant coverage only a very brief mention that he scored.
4 I can't actually translate this, but it seems to relate to his transfer to / from Cibalia. Not only is this four sentence note a long way from "significant coverage" required by GNG, it seems to essentially duplicate the second source you provided, so does not add anything in terms of GNG.
What is needed for GNG are articles, specifically about the player, that focus on his career, interviews, Q&As and the like, and again, we don't create articles in advance of a subject meeting a guideline simply because an editor has a feeling that "in all likelihood going to formally fulfill" it. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I examined the article but he's still questionable for his own independent article. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 25 June 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. Some reasonable sources provided during the debate, sufficient to bring this over the line. Euryalus (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Bellin[edit]

Howard Bellin (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 plastic surgeon. His book is in only 113 libraries; his second seems to be self-published. For a plastic surgeon to be featured on a few TV programs means he has a good PR agent and nothing more. He does seem to know a number of notable people, but that doesn't count much here. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Howard Bellin actually has been one of New York's best known plastic surgeons going back to the 1960s, although some of this notoriety related to his colorful role in New York society and his tempestuous open marriages to model Christina Paolozzi Bellin, who was noted among other things for being the first model to pose nude in Harper's Bazaar.[12][13][14] A 1993 Washington Post article sums up nicely: Bellin "was for a long time one of the city's major jet-setters, married to a wealthy countess with whom he had a well-publicized open marriage that lasted 18 years before their first divorce. Then she developed a brain tumor and they remarried, and divorced again when she seemed to be recovering. She died in 1988. He was also once famous for having been sued successfully by a woman who claimed he misaligned her belly button during tummy tuck surgery. She was awarded $854,219, later reduced to $200,000, but he said in newspaper stories at the time that his business had boomed as a result of all the publicity. But that was a long time ago. Now Bellin, 52, is repairing ripped earlobes, although he says 'rhinoplasty and breast implantation is what I do best.'" [15][16] The usual searches reveal multiple sources that say as much. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I also found only a few pieces of coverage, nothing beyond convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:44, 25 June 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. Euryalus (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CubicWeb[edit]

CubicWeb (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)

Minimal evidence of notability for this web application framework. The papers and conference talks relating to CubicWeb all seem to have been created or co-created by employees of Logilab, the makers of CubicWeb. As far as notable third-party mentions of CubicWeb, all I could find was this 2011 InfoWorld article, which is not currently included in the Wikipedia article. It does provide some evidence of notability, but I don't think it's enough. Yaron K. (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and searches have found nothing better at all, article shows no convincing signs. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:43, 25 June 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 Userfy to User:BOZ. I would suggest to BOZ, if they are not able to improve the article to the point of establishing separate notability, that the draft be converted to a redirect to Protoculture Addicts, which was the other possible outcome here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claude J. Pelletier[edit]

Claude J. Pelletier (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)

Created a notable magazine (Protoculture Addicts) and was an editor and contributor to it. Therefore his reviews may be quoted by others, but I'm not sure he is notable by himself. Was a guest at "Otakuthon 2009", but that was all I could find that gave him the focus. Could easily be a redirect to Protoculture Addicts but I don't think he's a likely search term. SephyTheThird (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did have one solid source which I used to create this article, and I will see what I can do to find more sources for him. BOZ (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If "Keep" is an unlikely result here, I would ask the closer to consider a move to WP:DRAFT space so that I can work on improving the article further. BOZ (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is of course nothing to stop you from manually copying the article to your own user space to continue working on it at your own pace. My only question is to ask if you think you can de-associate him from the magazine enough to necessitate the separate page. Everything seems to suggest his notoriety comes from being editor. I'm sure the DP9 article could handle that side of his projects just fine as well.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only time will tell if I am able to accomplish that. BOZ (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. He is synonymous with Protoculture Addicts. He has paneled at multiple conventions because of that magazine, even winning awards in the industry. [36] [37] [38] About Us shows he is still involved as an owner even if he isn't the editor-in-chief [39] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the event of further lack of responses I would change my nomination towards a redirect per Angus.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as I would've added Delete to enhance my Redirect suggestion but there seems to be enough to at least save, but there's still nothing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see multiple independent RS'es in the article as it stands now, so the GNG is met. Not the most important person on the Internet, certainly, but one whose 30 year career has shown up in enough RS to merit an article. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's debatable that it passes Basic. For starters most of the sources are trivial. He's mentioned in the context of starting or owning the mag but this only serves to further the view he's known purely for the mag or his other company. As Angus stated, his appearances at cons are because of that mag. Some of the sources also have to be eliminated from consideration. The ANN "congratulations" article should be ignored because ANN own the magazine, so clearly not neutral coverage as it is not independent of the subject (which Basic clearly states). Basic could be just as much used as a reason to support deletion as you suggest it is a keep reason. An RS source and a source that proves notability are not necessarily the same thing. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lorraine Kelly Experience[edit]

The Lorraine Kelly Experience (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)

Notability not asserted. These shows were part of an overall live wrestling show "tour", but why these particular events are notable is unclear. The results are sourced to Wordpress, but that seems to be usual for this promotion. Even for a major promoter like WWE, we don't carry standalone articles on individual regular shows.

The following pages are also being nominated for the same reason:

Fourth Annual Square Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rocky VII (Adrian's Revenge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- MSJapan (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 23:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these just seem like regular shows from a standard indie promoter, and the fact that this one chooses to give (ludicrous) individual names to each show does not make them notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant independent coverage and nothing to show this event is notable.Mdtemp (talk) 14:16, 28 June 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.

Lil Uzi Vert[edit]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SanAnMan (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Lil Uzi Vert (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)

Near identical recreation of deleted article (see WP:Articles for deletion/Lil Uzi Vert), again fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSBIO, artist has still not met notability standards. Would also suggest SALT the page. SanAnMan (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator recent success now meets GNG. Speedy keep. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a notable artist with chart achievements. werldwayd (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's definitely notable, I just added accolades from three major music sites, Spin, Complex and Noisey describing his significance. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 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 as withdrawn only because the best source regarding collections is the Art Daily. Honestly, I had search for collections but also particularly classified searching with including "permanent" and the simple searches were simply finding the non-significant collections (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 17:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Campbell[edit]

Beth Campbell (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 as the user apparently believes I had not "looked" at the listed sources but I in fact had actually mention them in my PROD and he also claims that the listed sources are apparently enough. However, the sources are not actual convincing substantial coverage and the exhibitions are not major art museums with permanent collections, something the PROD never attended to, thus still questionable for the applicable notability. The listed news, one of which I recovered and can be viewed in my PROD, is only either local coverage or a limited number of sentences, with my own searches also simply finding mere mentions, not actual coverage. I still confirm everything at my PROD here. Notifying DGG who has a long history with these subject articles. SwisterTwister talk 16:32, 25 June 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. There's clear consensus to delete here, especially with the useful analysis of sources. KaisaL (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future life progression[edit]

Future life progression (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 and WP:NFRINGE:

  • Current citations: Vast majority are self-published websites; all are written/published by people within the same small circle of hypnotists and none are independent
  • Peer-reviewed: Only mentioned in 3 sources, all very passing mentions, nothing even approaching meaningful coverage. For example, the journal Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice published one review of websites offering psychotherapy via telephone: "I was discouraged to see how many sites were devoted to less established therapies: thought field therapy (with “voice technology” assessment over the phone to help target the points on the body that the patient would tap to bring his or her nervous system back into balance), emotional freedom therapy (more tapping?), neurolinguistic programming, eidetic image therapy, hypnotherapy, life coaching, dream analysis, past life regression and future life progression (on the same site), vortex healing, and a process healing course.".[51]
  • Mainstream media: 6 sources mention it, 5 of which are passing mentions in the same vein as the peer-reviewed sources. The most in depth coverage was written by a non-expert express.co.uk.[52]
  • Google scholar: 31 hits, all passing mentions and/or non-independent sources
  • Web: All self-published, non-independent sources —PermStrump(talk) 16:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I notified WT:MED and WP:FTN about this AfD. —PermStrump(talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note that the "best" source (the express.co.uk piece) is not really good. Moreover, the article looks like a WP:COATRACK about reincarnation rather than hypnosis therapy by phone" (which is what the sources mention). TigraanClick here to contact me 09:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: no opposition to a mention per User:WLU's suggestion below, but I would not call that a merge if no content from the parent article is actually merged. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable as a stand alone article. Agree that COATRACK applies and fails independent RS citation for notability. Kierzek (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or partial merge. A reluctant vote to keep, but I do think it describes a notable phenomenon. People really do believe in this, as they do believe in past life regression. Since it is a type of past life regression, already a fringe phenomenon, passing RS mentions are to be expected. I do not necessarily support keeping the whole article but a redirect and a brief mention at Past life regression should at least be present. Roches (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I think that this can be easily summarized as a very short section or single sentence in the past life regression page, along the lines of "People use similar techniques claiming that they can also access future lives and reincarnations." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge or redirect. There is no logical target; this is not a subset of past life regression and not even that similar. It doesn't help that this article sometimes refers to its subject as "past life regression," apparently by mistake. Nothing here worth merging; get rid of it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 3 July 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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elías González[edit]

Elías González (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 by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. No consensus after minimal participation and two relistings. No prejudice against speedy renomination (WP:NPASR). MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freewire[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Freewire (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 necessarily factual and cannot find any sources after 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUSConservative (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 June 2016‎

Comments re PROD
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note: This article was originally PRODed on the grounds that it was hopelessly out of date. The PROD went the full seven days without challenge and the article became deletable. The PRODer also created this AfD at about the same time (probably due to inexperience as it is a fairly recent account). It is my belief that TheUSConservative blanked this AfD having realised it was superfluoous. The AfD was reinstated and the PROD deleted by someone else on the grounds that an AfD is in place.

This article should be deleted because the PROD ran its course unchallenged. --Elektrik Fanne 11:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins do not delete PRODs just because they sat for 7 days and no one objected. Admins only delete where there is a valid reason to delete an article. In this case the PROD reason was that the article hadn't been updated in 2 years, that is a reason to edit the article not delete it. The removal of the PROD was correct. -- GB fan 17:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GB fan:That was not the reason given for the deletion of the PROD. However valid your reasoning is, the given reason for deleting the PROD was not valid (that an AfD had been inadvertently created by an inexperienced editor). --Elektrik Fanne 10:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is no invalid reason to remove a prod. A prod can be removed for any reason or no reason at all. -- GB fan 11:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting also that the request for deletion via WP:PROD has been declined. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most of the content I'm seeing on Google News has nothing to do with the UK media company described in the article, but rather with a US-based startup. It seems to be that there are multiple different companies, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not appear to suggest that the one the article currently discusses should be the first thing a reader sees. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems at best because my searches have found nothing particularly better, there's also then nothing else convincing for the noticeably needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notably at one point, there's tons of articles from reliable sources from the 2000's about the IPTV service. Just because it hasn't made news lately doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Needs updating, sure, but deletion seems like an overreach. Maybe even needs to become a disambiguation page because of the other US-based Freewire company. But deletion? No. LAroboGuy (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot find anything on if it's even a company anymore. We cannot factually update the article and it's notability now is in question and it's factuality could be compromised. TheUSConservative (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Striking this "delete" !vote; as nominator your "delete" !vote is already counted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:16, 25 June 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second Scottish independence referendum[edit]

Second Scottish independence referendum (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:CRYSTAL - discussing a hypothetical referendum which has not been called, and may not be. Most of the subject matter would be more suitable as a section on the Scottish independence page MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. This comes very close to a frivolous nomination. The topic of this article has been the subject of major international news coverage, and is an official step taken by the Scottish Government. Although the referendum at this stage is only in the planning stage – the Scottish Government has started to prepare legislation to that effect and announced the referendum is "highly likely" to take place – the topic of the planned referendum is clearly notable. We had an article about the UK EU referendum long before it actually took place too, and we have Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2016 about an expected party election later this year. Even if it were not to take place, it would still be a notable topic, given the steps taken by the Scottish Government yesterday and today, and the media coverage. --Tataral (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we look at David Cameron first calling an EU referendum (back in January 2013 - the Bloomberg speech), it took more than a year before there was a page for a potential referendum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union&oldid=591489439). Before then all the information was contained within pages for "Brexit" and "United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union", therefore, just because a possibility of a second referendum has been discussed doesn't mean a page need be created instantly. I agree, it's the subject of discussion, I am just suggesting that the discussion is better placed in the Scottish independence article, rather than this. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is highly likely to be significantly expanded in the coming days, and weeks, and it's already long enough to merit its own article. There should be a shorter summary (a section) in the Scottish independence article, and we should retain this one as a more detailed main article. --Tataral (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, more than half of the article is 'Background' of the two other referenda, so I would disagree that it is really long enough to merit keeping the article. I would say that the point at which the article is necessary is when legislation is introduced before the Scottish Parliament or if the Scottish Government publishes draft legislation (which I conceed, may be soon, but it could be months). Before then, there's nothing that isn't alreadty written in United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016#Scottish Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what is to be gained by deleting this article now and recreating it in some weeks or months. The article was created only yesterday and will certainly be expanded even as this AfD discussion takes place. The amount of media coverage is more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Tataral (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. The general Scottish independence article is the right place for new developments at this stage. We don't know for sure that there will be an independence referendum, as Nicola Sturgeon said on Friday that a referendum is only an "option". At least possible that there may be some other outcome, e.g. a deal between EU and Scotland that was different from its new relationship with the rest of the UK. This article explores one possibility, that of the rest of the UK leaving the EU but Scotland retaining the UK membership (see also Greenland and the European Union). [53] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL in this, the article on Scottish independence is certainly long enough already, and this suggestion/proposal is a specific one that is already generating discussion in reputable sources. It should be kept and expanded as time goes on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the relevance of the topic is great enough to merit its own article, and indeed, the Scottish independence article is too long to have this in it too. Cipika (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been widely cover even in the US as early as just after the first referendum. While the article should have started as a section (perhaps as a part of Scottish independence referendum, 2014 possible rename) Tataral's point about ending up having to recreate the article is spot on. I also agree with Ghmyrtle on the WP:CRYSTAL issue. Spshu (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems that a second referendum on Scottish Independence is quite likely at this stage. I think that since the article will be expanded loads anyway, it makes more sense to keep it for now. Pablothepenguin (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can already see a bright future of this article! Scotland is going to be a independent country! So speedy keep.—Gaurh (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SNOW. Although this is still only proposed, it is receiving a huge amount of discussion in mainstream media. If this doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, I don't know what does. Molpies! (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Even if this referendum were to never occur, it has become the subject of major international news coverage and to delete an article on a significant topic that a significant number of readers will be searching for would be counterproductive. Dustin (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a Second Scottish independence referendum, at least all over the news and in people's minds. How this topic evolve is relevant, hence this article should be kept as long as there is enough people contributing to it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:CRYSTAL does not prohibit this page. It easily passes WP:GNG. Of course, everything must be well-sourced to avoid original research and speculation, but this is more than notable enough that it should stay. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 07:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a great possibility that it will happen and if it never were to occur it should be mentioned on Wikipedia that it was proposed and a lot of media coverage was given to it. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Even if this is somewhat WP:TOOSOON, it easily passes WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This does not need to happen to be notable. The content would overwhelm the main Scottish independence article and this is not idle speculation or improper synthesis - the prospect of this referendum is real and well covered in many reliable sources. Fences&Windows 13:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SNOW. This afd doesn't need to continue at this point. Clearly meets WP:GNG per secondary/media sources even if it is WP:CRYSTAL. —  dainomite   15:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is well-sourced and the subject is receiving a great deal of media discussion. Even if there isn't a second referendum, the discussion around it is notable. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 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. Non-notable, one of several articles created as part of mass spamming by obv COI editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe DeVito (artist)[edit]

Joe DeVito (artist) (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 artist. DeVito does not appear to be a notable artist. The only independent coverage I could find for him is this story in Hollywood Reporter about his lawsuit against Legendary Pictures and Warner Brothers over their alleged stealing of his Kong: King of Skull Island idea. This does not appear to be sufficient to assert long-term notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:06, 25 June 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 Original Night Stalker. MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheri Domingo[edit]

Cheri Domingo (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:TOOSOON Meatsgains (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Night stalker page is already pretty full. If anything it could be better linked with pages on each of the murders?. Given the FBI just announced a full media campaign into capturing the ONS, released more evidence and has news features throughout the Europe and the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.34.1 (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What pages are you suggesting we redirect this page to? Meatsgains (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG. Per good sourcing. BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Not a candidate for a separate article per WP:VICTIM. Redirect to Original Night Stalker which already mentions both July 27, 1981 victims in some detail. Gab4gab (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect and merge to Original Night Stalker. I see no justification for deletion. There has been significant coverage of this 1981 murder in recent years [54]; and has been at least since 1981 [55] ('Night Stalker' Theory Connecting Eight Southland Slayings Disputed: KILLINGS; Hurst, John. Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File) [Los Angeles, Calif] 02 Aug 1981: a3. ) - that is one of a number of older articles that popped up in a simple Proquest search on Cheri Domingo.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:54, 3 July 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 Al-Hilal FC#Management. North America1000 03:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Al-Hilal FC presidents[edit]

List of Al-Hilal FC presidents (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 nothing but a lift of the list of Presidents from the source cited as a reference. There's nothing particularly notable about it - the reason some of them have articles is because this is a Saudi Arabian team, and thus has ties to various members of the Saudi royal family. There's no precedent to maintain this sort of information for football articles, precisely because of the NN nature of it. MSJapan (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into main Al Hilal page, no need for a separate page Seasider91 (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Al Hilal article. No-need for an individual list. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't even merit a mention on main page, let alone standalone article. GiantSnowman 10:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:44, 25 June 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. Not a huge amount of discussion, but enough to call this a consensus to delete. Some sources were mentioned, but they appear to all be passing mentions, announcements, or otherwise not establishing notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ballistic advantage[edit]

Ballistic advantage (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)

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Article was speedy deleted once and declined 3 times at AfC. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defense Review is questionable as a source. Regardless, the first is a product review, not coverage of the company. The second is an announcement about their current product line, not coverage of the company. And the third is about a gun made up of parts, including a part from this company, not coverage of this company. Being mentioned doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:CORP. I found a few mentions of some of their products, but no actual coverage of the company. MB (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...Ballistic Advantage is a parts maker. As I see it, we all know GM, Ford and Chrysler, but how many people can name the companies that supply them with parts?--RAF910 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 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. Wizardman 14:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Drossner[edit]

Jake Drossner (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:BASEBALL/N. Doesn't meet WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources; most coverage is from sources related to him, e.g. his schools, teams, leagues, etc. The only significant indy coverage I could find was on a single news event, his being drafted, which was covered by his hometown.Bucks County Courier Times buckslocalnews.com. However, WP:NOTNEWS. —Bagumba (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 25 June 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 Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Codex of the Infinite Planes[edit]

Codex of the Infinite Planes (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 does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related page because it's a similar article that does not establish notability either:
Jacinth of Inestimable Beauty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this third party review mentions both items (out of hundreds presumably covered in the game book being reviewed). Still looking for sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • .... and here is a second reference for the second item, so Keep Jacinth of Inestimable Beauty, jury's still out on the nominal/primary AfD'ed fictional item. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the original AfD item is also a named card in Spellfire (see here for listing), and that might be a good redirect target. That product predates the widespread adoption of the Internet, and so I have not yet been able to find RS commentary on it, but that is yet another TSR game, in addition to the various D&D games, to include such a magic item. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete both. Those secondary sources are a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. The review is a passing mention, and the OSU book is tantalizing, but without having it available, it looks like a passing mention as well. It appears to be an examples of the increasing narrative complexity of the game, and not much of a commentary about the fictional artifact itself. Context matters with sources, so someone who has read it might be able to say otherwise. Better yet, if anyone has link to that article, I would like to see it, it might potentially be useful for other articles as well. I think I actually had that Spellfire card at one point, but again, very, very in-universe product integration-type stuff. There might have been substantial coverage in InQuest or Scrye or similar, but until those sources show up, there's not enough to support an article. Since Spellfire itself lacks reliable sources, this seems like a precarious foundation for building new articles, which is the main problem all these AFDs are facing. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). A couple trivial mentions is not enough to support the creation of an independent article. We need significant coverage, not verification that something exists. An in-universe, unsourcecd article could exist on some fan wiki at Wikia, but this is a general-purpose encyclopedia with inclusion criteria. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage to support an article at this time, but if someone can locate significant coverage in offline, third-party sources, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 1 July 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. czar 19:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Sinnicks[edit]

Steven Sinnicks (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)

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This is based almost entirely on primary sources and blogs, with only a tiny smattering of reliable source media coverage which emanates entirely from the local media in the city where he was based at the time. While this was clearly written with an eye to passing NMUSIC criteria, it missed: charting claims are stacked onto the non-IFPI certified CMJ New Music Monthly, which was falsely described as a Canadian national pop chart rather than the US-based college radio chart that it really is; award wins are exclusively local to his own hometown; radio airplay claims are stacked entirely onto college radio stations, with the exception of a CBC Radio claim that's sourced to a playlist on the web-only CBC Hamilton (which is (a) his own hometown again, and (b) not evidence of being playlisted by the national CBC Radio network, which is what it would take to pass NMUSIC on radio airplay.)

In addition, the article was literally a jungle of linkfarming for the personal webpages of non-notable collaborators until I cleaned it up for WP:ELNO compliance just now. Further, I need to call attention to Draft:Steve Sinnicks, which is basically the exact same article and has been rejected ten times at AFC for the same reasons I'm bringing up here — it would appear that this time the creator simply copy-pasted the draft and bypassed AFC instead of following proper process.

As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- he must be reliably sourceable as passing WP:NMUSIC, but literally nothing here satisfies either part of that equation. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:19, 25 June 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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India Institute[edit]

India Institute (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. Non notable organization. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not seeing anything to help this pass WP:ORG. As for the sources provided in the article, they're either affiliated with the think-tank or give me 404 errors. Much of it looks rather promotional, too. GABgab 19:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:ORG. Uncletomwood (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur it fails WP:ORG. Yeah, it exists, and there's some slight references, but not enough to establish notability. It's product getting an award does not in and of itself making the organization notable. Also, some elements of the article are copyright violations (see Earwig's copyvio report). Though not a reason to delete, the article is heavily promotional, and appears to be written by a single purpose account. I've placed a {{uw-paid}} on the author's talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Even ignoring all the low edit count contributors who !voted keep, consensus clearly shifted in favor of keep as the discussion continued. While we want to discourage canvassing for discussions, we do that by discounting obviously canvassed and non-policy based !votes; but we don't hold it against the article beyond that. (And if the attention results in an improved article, all the better) In the end, there is a clear keep consensus among the established editors who contributed to the discussion. Monty845 23:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Todd J. Rathner[edit]

Todd J. Rathner (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. Being a board member of a group and being active on its committees does not confer notability, and there's apparently nothing else he has ever done. Article created by an SPA. MSJapan (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There aren't any significant independent sources about the guy, just some passing references or quotes. Felsic2 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Brief article about a non-notable person seemingly trying to use Wikipedia as a source of credibility for their career. Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article about a professional lobbyist for an organization that I (and many other editors ) DONOTLIKE. I can see that this was a highly bloated page, presumably WP:PROMO, and that a couple of editors have combed the page ane let out a lot of the hot air. However, I ran a couple of searches on versions of his name - adding articles form USA Today and the Sarasota Herald that I found in those searches and overall, I am not comfortable deleting a guy with this much coverage in the news over so many years, plus a claim to have influenced a significant piece of legislation and founding a new lobbying group that may be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a good case of "notability is not inherited". The subject was on the board of National Rifle Association. That doesn't help in proving notability. I tried to search for the article subject and I found these sources USA today, Bloomerg, NPR, AZ Central, tucson.com which either quote the subject or have a trivial mention. This is not significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. I could not find any source which discusses the subject in detail. This fails WP:GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also searched and did not find it quite so simple. During my search, I found an article in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune describing him as having founded a lobbying outfit, and an article in Safari (magazine) about the fact that he owns a safari-arranging company - added both to the article. After reading Lemongirl1942's comment, I double-checked my opinion by searching the Arizona Republic, and found this: [58] discussing his career in ssubstantive detail.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rathner is a prominent lobbyist and very notable with regard to legislation. Sources abound in the mainstream media.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of the article is a nationally known lobbyist who has passed legislation in Arizona that has been used as a template for other states to pass the same legislation. Subject's work has created national policy, that is seemingly important enough to keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.17.218 (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC) — 24.251.17.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MSJapan (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google News search for "Todd Rathner" yields 153 hits for me, and a number of them are in high-quality journalistic sources who deemed Rathner noteworthy enough for substantial coverage relating to the work that our article cites for his notability: gun and knife-rights activism. See, e.g., [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]. The article is clearly a work in progress, but the subject seems notable under WP:GNG. DickClarkMises (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see each article has some quotes by the subject, yet none of them describe the subject in detail. We need reliable secondary sources about the subject. That is restricted to a single sentence mentions that the subject is a lobbyist working for NRA or another group. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, would you look again? This is an article entirely about legal action Rathner was threatening in Tucson and mentions him by name six times. In this article about switchblades he is quoted three times as an authority on knife laws. Here is an article about knife laws in Texas and Rathner's efforts to change them. This source cites Rathner as an authority on the inner workings of the NRA. This article refers to him by name five times, again in his capacity as a firearms activist. This one mentions him by name half a dozen times, describes his knife rights group as "leading the charge" on the issue, and provides info about Rathner as one of its prominent leaders. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rathner is a board member and/or lobbyist for three prominent and highly controversial organizations (National Rifle Association, Knife Rights, NFA Freedom Alliance). He is frequently featured in the news media, both as a source and as the subject of news articles and editorials ([70]). Given that this news coverage of Rathner goes back almost seven years, I don't see any basis for claiming that he lacks notoriety and/or is not a public figure. Douva (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the guy runs NFAFA - an organization that passed laws in several states, and is a lobbyist for Knife Rights. MicroBalrog (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)01:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC) — MicroBalrog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MSJapan (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is interesting that they listed this article with the terrorism project, but left it out of the firearms project. Obviously it is the bias against firearms at work here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it's because the topic isn't a gun? Also, who's your collective "they?" The cabal? Read the scope of the firearms project right at the top of the page. Activism isn't in their scope, and that's their choice. If you consider that to be biased, go discuss it on the project talk with them, not here. MSJapan (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Rathner and the NFAFA lobbied strongly to get knife laws changed in New York State in the past legislative session. New York State is a place not known for it's support of gun or weapons friendly legislation of late, so that's a significant accomplishment for any lobbyist or lobbyist organization. Johnsonlmg (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC) — Johnsonlmg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE TO CLOSER - The above editor socked to add 5 additional "keep" votes to this discussion, per [[73], all of which I have struckthrough. The closer may wish to discard their vote because of this behavior. There has also been off-Wiki canvassing for "keep" votes, as discussed on AN/I. BMK (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Subject is clearly notable, this discussion - again - is being misused as a political discussion. I will clean up the article and maybe remove some fluff. Antonycarrere (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean "again"? Your account is 12 days old. MSJapan (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - As much as I hate to come down on the side of an army of meat puppets (and as much as I generally assume that positions which rely on canvassing tend to be the ones unsupported by policy), the sources linked by DickClarkMises look to be sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. Article clearly needs plenty of work, though. A word to anyone who has not previously edited Wikipedia thinking about chiming in: you're almost certainly acting against your own interests by doing so. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per DickClarkMises. Rathner is regularly quoted/cited in reliable sources as an expert in the area of gun/knife rights and laws. Per the numerous sources posted above. Additionally, per WP:ANYBIO Rathner has certainly made a significant contribution to their field Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • PROOF OF CANVASSING Check this facebook status by the article subject: "Are any of my friends registered Wikipedia editors? If so please PM me." (See also Snapshot of Facebook profile and the fact that the subject advertises his Wikipedia page on his profile. This is WP:PROMO territory). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All that "prooves" is that he asked if anyone knows how to edit wikipedia.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the sources E.M.Gregory found, which now satisfies GNG. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Think he satisfies notability. White Arabian Filly Neigh 01:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been covered by major news agency like The New York Times, NPR, Los Angeles Times, Houston Chronicles, Bloomberg etc. He seems to pass the notability test per WP:GNG. Apart from links mentioned above by User:DickClarkMises, he has been mentioned in The Week article. The article may need some expansion but deleting it won't be a correct choice. Hitro talk 13:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘Keep Unlike the nominator I believe that being a board member of powerful organization such as the NRA does confer notability. Ottawahitech (talk) 07:23, 29 June 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. czar 19:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Coulter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lynn Coulter (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 was kept after the previous AfD but that was 9 years ago. Reading through that discussion, I don't see any arguments that make me think "yes, this should be kept". There are a few reviews of her books but no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about the author herself. There is no evidence she meets WP:AUTHOR either. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough coverage to pass our notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:13, 25 June 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. We appear to be split on this issue, and as it has been relisted twice already it doesn't seem the debate is going to reach any sort of actionable consensus. Sourcing does appear to be an issue in spite of this close and I would hope some of those speaking of systematic bias would seek to work to improve the referencing rather than abandoning the topic after this debate. KaisaL (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrian Students' Association[edit]

Zoroastrian Students' Association (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 organization. No indications in the article that the organization or its "famous" events have been the subject of any significant independent coverage, nor can any be found. It should be noted that all citations presently given in the article are from kdz.ir, the organization's own website.WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This Iranian organization has been active since 1969 and appears to be one of the oldest functioning Zoroastrian youth organizations in that nation. I would be surprised if there is much English-language media coverage, since it is not an international group, and in view of the ongoing concerns of systemic bias on Wikipedia I would hope that some effort could be made to confirm the subject's notability - perhaps with the help of editors fluent in Persian - rather than rush this to deletion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In addition to English language sources, I also searched for "کانون دانشجویان زرتشتی", the group's Persian name, and found little in the way of independent significant coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see what others have to contribute to improving this article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed to determine the consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reopened a non-admin closure and relisted this discussion as there is not sufficient discussion at this time to determine a consensus. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep, per adoil 92.9.158.191 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @92.9.158.191: Adoil's comment was that there should be sources, based on the age of the organization, and that a search in Persian might prove fruitful. I replied to him there, and I'll reply to you here, the possibility of sources is not what is needed; the actual presence of sources is what is needed. If you can find the sources, please do so. Otherwise, without independent sources, the article should not be allowed to remain. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely misquoting me. I never said "that there should be sources." Your eagerness to erase this article is already noted. Now, please let other editors participate in this discussion without chasing them and insisting they are wrong. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I sympathize with the discussion about "systemic bias," on Wikipedia, I too was not able to locate any independent sources on this subject. The fact of the matter is that if verifiable and independent sources don't exist, the article doesn't pass WP:GNG let alone WP:ORG. Organization age isn't an indication of notability, third-party coverage is. Absent of someone else discovering some good sources (which is possible, but hasn't happened yet), this should be deleted. ERK talk 09:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are hardly any third party sources which can satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Multiple third party sources are needed to show that an organisation is notable. Even searching for the Persian name doesn't bring up these. From the Persian language sources I found and translated with Google, I managed to verify 2 facts - 1. It is a student organisation. 2. It is registered with the ministry of interior or some equivalent. None of these however talk about the organisation in detail or offer any details about it. Significant coverage in reliable and independent sources are needed for passing WP:GNG, which is not available here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking up English language sources will find that a "Zoroastrian Students' Association" exists in some universities in US/Europe. However, whether these are related to the organisation in Iran is questionable. Since this is not a WP:BRANCH and doesn't satisfy WP:CLUB, I do not see a need for keeping this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Iran's Zoroastrian population is marginalized and it is not likely that it would receive generous attention from the IRNA or other government-blessed media sources. I would rather err on the side of caution, as per Adoil's acknowledgement of the systemic bias problems on this website, than delete because casual search engine queries don't pull up numerous sources. Capt. Milokan (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I understand all about the systemic bias at Wikipedia, and also the likelihood that the Zoroastrian Students' Association would receive any significant coverage might be low, but we at Wikipedia can't be held responsible for the facts in the world that render reliable sources unavailable, we can just react to the fact that reliable sources are unavailable by sticking to our own policies. If people would like to address the policy to say that we require reliable sources except when the topic is somehow marginalized, that's a windmill to tilt at elsewhere, but for now, we have the guidelines we have. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, if the so-called "reliable sources" are available regarding this organization, then most likely they are not online, given the Iranian government's heavy censorship of online information, especially in regard to the non-Muslim populations within the Islamic Republic. And the fact a non-Muslim organization founded in Iran in 1969 is still around is certainly no small accomplishment. But the argument to delete an article because you can't find the subject on Google shows ignorance on the subject of religious minorities in Iran. Capt. Milokan (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Capt. Milokan:, Verifiability is key on Wikipedia. Keeping articles because "sources may exist" compromises the quality of the encyclopaedia. I have previously seen a case where an editor claiming to be from Nepal argued to keep a hoax article about an alleged Nepali language - and tried to use the systemic bias as a shield. In this case, unless we can verify facts about the organisation, I wouldn't want to keep it. I'm myself an editor from a part of the world which is affected by systemic bias. However, I have never felt the reason to compromise on verifiability. Systemic bias needs to be fought but Wikipedia's key policies such as WP:V cannot be bent. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Capt. Milokan: To reiterate what Lemongirl has said, and to respond to your comment: I understand why online sources for this organization might be scarce. That is why we allow the AFD to run for several days: to allow people who are close to the subject (the article's authors, perhaps) time to find what sources they can. And print sources are fine, if they are publicly available for review. But if no sources exist (even if the reason no sources exist is because of religious repression) than we have no basis for an article. That's unfortunate, but it is not Wikipedia's job to fight the ills of the world; only to report as fairly as possible in the face of those ills. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:35, 3 July 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 per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been advanced in the nomination. North America1000 03:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chambal Garden[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chambal Garden (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)

Why the page should be deleted ❤ TrendSPLEND ✉ 09:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion nomination does not state a reason. Hey, I get it, they were told to "Say why the page should be deleted", so they did! :) But seriously, despite the sorry state of the article, it is the largest or one of the largest parks in Kota, a city of 1,001,694 population, and it is a significant attraction. There are lots of reviews of it in the web of copycat travel websites India has. Maybe it has crocodiles, maybe not. It is a great place to visit, maybe it is a disappointment. Etc. --doncram 23:29, 29 June 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. Will userfy upon request. czar 17:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sikarwar[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY, but always hard with non-English language topics. Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or at least Draft instead as Books actually found a few noticeable links, nothing particularly outstanding to suggest a considerably enhanced article but enough to confirm its existence, and this would of course need any necessary familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @SwisterTwister: please could you provide some of those links from Books because I can't spot any, except for unreliable Raj stuff and WP mirrors (Hepaestus Books etc). I'm incline to say delete based on my own attempts to research this over several years but I'll hold off until you respond. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At best, if the article is still not improvable, I found a few links at Books ("Sikwarwar Rajput clan") but as I said, I'm willing to delete and then Draft if needed for a better article is available later. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, @SwisterTwister: I can see nothing using that search. GBooks doesn't return the same results - it depends on your location etc - and that is why I asked if you could elaborate because then I could look at those results using other methods. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, if those results you saw were from the British Raj era then they are not acceptable. The Raj writers were useless and basically took for granted whatever they were told by whomsoever told them. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to International Talent Support. MBisanz talk 01:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Franchin[edit]

Barbara Franchin (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 declined an A7 tag for this person in the fashion industry but was reverted, so I'm bringing the discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In case it wasn't obvious, I am voting Keep as a news search reveals many hits, mostly in the Italian press, but a few other places including CNN. Sounds like she's well known in Italy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ritchie333. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) 00:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did some more looking into the coverage, and besides one interview (primary source), coverage appeared mostly WP:TRIVIAL. --Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) 22:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article could use expansion + improved referencing per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft instead for now it seems as there could be enough to keep for now but it's still borderline at best, the best claims there are only the "recognized" and the Elle coverage. I would rather wait for a better article and then restore at mainspace to ensure the best solidity. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister - Is there a policy to support drafting an already created article? Hmlarson (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:37, 25 June 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. Arguments have been presented for both Keep and Delete, but the Delete arguments are more firmly based in Wikipedia policy and carry the day. MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig B. Lloyd[edit]

Craig B. Lloyd (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:SOLDIER. Non notable officer and his post CG doesn't offer any notability either. Prod removed by IP user who made claims that he meets WP:SOLDIER 5&6 but I disagree. Commanding a search and rescue mission is admirable but not what is meant by 5&6. Or does being on TV make it notable? Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an admiral and no significant awards or posts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the article USCGC Munro (WHEC-724), meets WP:SOLDIER 5&6 as a significant post. 184.90.237.3 (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It could use better sourcing for his commands and medals, though. Just because his USCGC Munro command fails WPS doesn't mean his command is not notable. Most global militaries have notable peacetime events. — Wyliepedia 17:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that his command of the rescue mentioned in Deadliest Catch is a case of BLP1E Gbawden (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that his New Orleans DCS command (post-Hurricane Katrina) trumps BLP1E. — Wyliepedia 15:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as examining the article still found questionability for his own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passing criteria 5 and 6 of WP:SOLDIER having two significant commands Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ok, this is going to get long, but we need to address the points raised for the afd and explain this slowly for everyone's benefit. To begin with, everyone missed an important point here: strictly speaking, WP:SOLDIER does not - repeat NOT - apply here. While it is true that the United States Coast Guard does operate in a military capacity, the events covered in the article are not exclusively within the scope of the military history project, there are in keeping with the Coast Guard's role under the United States Department of Homeland Security. This means that the article's subject material comes more under the heading of the General Notability Guidelines for people as opposed to soldier specifically. Accordingly then, while SOLDIER 5 and 6 may state that he "Played an important role in a significant military event;" or "Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat;" they did not occur in a combat situation. That redefines this argument fundamentally to be one unrelated to milhist guidelines here. Without the protection of MILHIST in this matter, the rest of the article unwinds pretty quickly. Captain is a high ranking officer, but a captain in command of only a cutter does not qualify for the protection afforded flag officers. In this specific case, a little leeway does need to be given due to the nature of the Coast Guard's command structure - there are only two flag officers that are in the USCG, so captain should carry a little more weight here, but that is offset by the fact that there are 244 cutters in the Coast Guard, all of whom would likely carry a ranking officer at or near Captain, and that number does not include land based stations, boats, aircraft, or other non-naval related areas covered by the coast guard, which in turn offsets what little the article gains by this reorientation. His actions at the helm during the loss of the fishing boat on Deadliest Catch does initially appear to save the article, however it simultaneously seals the article's fate under WP:ONEEVENT: The cutter's captain is best known only for the rescue. His New Orleans service is in this case irrelevant to the notability claim since he was not on service in the Gulf of Mexico when Hurricane Katrina made landfall, which makes him 12 months too late to have had any important role in the well publicized rescue and recovery efforts in the city. The final nail in the coffin is that the only two references are for the man's education, not for his service. Without a means to verify the information in the article's other paragraphs, and with a master's degree being an important but common-ish education milestone, there is literally nothing in this article that demonstrates notability in any capacity. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:56, 3 July 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 Rio (2011 film). czar 19:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blu (Rio)[edit]

Blu (Rio) (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 consists almost entirely of unencyclopedic plot summary. The character in question is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Sro23 (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per WP:TNT. It's mostly unsourced, since the only reference provided addresses just the sequel; also, the level of detail is just excessive. The character is non-notable, and there really is nothing here that isn't written better in Rio (2011 film) and Rio 2. Parts of this article also seem to be copied directly from Rio 2. GABgab 19:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • On 2nd thought, Redirect to Rio (2011 film). Works for me. GABgab 23:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 26 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facter[edit]

Facter (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 artist, sources are mainly broken links and self-published. Please discuss Brittabrowsler (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked and didn't find such sources. Could you identify them here so that we can evaluate them? --Michig (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Have commenced providing them in the article itself & removing broken-links and self-published sources. When searching you need to search under "Fletcher Andersen" or "Fletcher Anderson". Surprisingly enough for a street artist there is actually a lot of sources available about him. Dan arndt (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you could list 3 or 4 reliable independent sources here that provide significant coverage it would be helpful to the discussion. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forbes: opinion piece written by the subject, redbubble: not a RS, artsistwa.com: not a RS, news.com.au: Briefly quotes the subject, no significant coverage, Huffington Post: briefly quotes the subject, no significant coverage, artlyst, possibly not a RS, briefly quotes the subject, streetartnyc.org: blog interview, Herald Sun: briefly quotes the subject, no significant coverage, SMH: briefly quotes the subject, no significant coverage, artshub - telephone interview in a source of dubious reliability. In summary, just the sort of coverage that I found and insufficient to support an article. --Michig (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the fact that he is recognized as a "street art expert" in numerous national newspapers, an art field that typically gets very little exposure in any press or literature, is not relevant at all. I refer to criteria 1 of WP:CREATIVE, "person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Secondly the fact that he co-ordinated a major street art project, "All Your Walls" clearly satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CREATIVE, "person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Dan arndt (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nominator of this AfD is the sockpuppet of a blocked user Kunstmolch, which surely draws into question the whole AfD nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The master was not blocked at the time of the nomination. They were both blocked at the same time, so it wasn't created in violation of a block. Any votes that come in from socks now will be removed. -- GB fan 10:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best and then Draft instead because if his works had been permanently collected by major art museums, I would've Kept but there's no insinuates of that thus Delete as, although the news is convincing enough for the basic improvements, there's still questionability. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in relation to the preceding comment, the requirement under WP:CREATIVE is not solely dependent upon whether a person's work (or works) is represented within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums (criteria #4). As previously stated the individual satisfies criteria #1 & #2 of WP:CREATIVE. Dan arndt (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to the refutations of the sources by Michig not notable artist, keep as draft. Antonycarrere (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC) (struck sock puppet !vote)[reply]
  • Comment I am the subject of this articles, and I have a conflict of interest in this article WP:COI. I apologise if I have any of the conventions incorrect here in commenting. I have just seen this in a google search, and as I am not familiar with the Wikipedia world I make no comment on the subject of whether this should be deleted or not. I do, however, wish to add comments to assist the discussion. The nature of street art is not like other art. We do not have our work in galleries. We often create our work in grey areas of the law. We are not often reported on, because we do not seek publicity and often go out of our way to avoid it. In my case, I became an advocate years ago and went into the public eye in order to do so. I am involved a lot more behind the scenes than is in newspapers, but I am widely sought out as an expert in these matters within Australia - I don't think regular rules for notability for street artists to necessarily apply but I know nothing of Wikipedia so I really have no idea. Anyways, just to let you know, not all sources have been found. Please note also [ https://issuu.com/theweeklyreview.com.au/docs/melbournetimesweekly300113] where I was asked to contribute to the article as a street art expert. Another interview at VNA magazine, the worlds foremost publication on global street art [85] I was also one of the featured artists who created work for the Neon Laneway exhibition as a part of White Night Melbourne 2016 [86] Neon Laneway was highly acclaimed exhibition and performance within White Night. Although they did not attribute my artwork, which is unfortunately very common in street art, my work for White Night was published on the front page of the print version of The Age newspaper and also on The Age website [87] as well as on the Herald Sun, although it appears the article is now under their paid subscription blocking. The audio snippet from ArtsHub is actually an excerpt of an interview conducted on The Arts Show broadcast on air on the radio on Highland FM 100.1 [88] - the original recording from the show is here [89] I am also a founding member of Hosier Inc [90] , which is not mentioned, which was an committee put together to advocate Hosier lane and to fight against development of Hosier lane [91] where I spoke alongside a member for parliament in my position as an artist and street art advocate - the event was covered here [92] with Hosier Inc I helped produce and curate two large scale painting projects called Paint Up, the first featuring the artist Adnate [93] and the second featuring Dvate - all of this was done under the Hosier Inc banner. Anyways, I just wanted to add these so that the discussion was informed. Apologies again if I have not done any of this correctly but please note I do have a conflict of interest here, but I hope this extra information has been helpful to your discussion. Facterinvurtion (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as an unrecognized locality. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Glen Ellyn, Illinois[edit]

North Glen Ellyn, Illinois (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 spuriously states that an unincoporated area is a new incoporporated place. The page creator has even created a new image highlighting the unincorporated area. Article lacks references except for a listing in the GNIS, which doesn't alone make this section of DuPage, Countty, IL, notable. Fitnr 18:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legally recognized place per WP:GEOLAND. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG unless someone can show some evidence. No evidence of this place being mentioned as a proper name in third-party coverage, let alone being news or covered itself. Also, the claim of incorporation as a village appears to be plain false; I don't think it's even a CDP. To wit:
    • In a quick Google search I can't find any WP:RS for this place even cited as a location in news, let alone coverage about the place itself. It could be that the name hasn't been used for decades, and we just don't have old printed coverage online, but I've found no evidence. I can't find any news articles on Google about "North Glen Ellyn".
    • The evidence indicates that this is not incorprated:
      • The Illinois Secretary of State is the official source of incorporated municipalities in Illinois and on that website there is no "North Glen Ellyn" in the Name Index to Illinois Local Governments: I searched for "North Glen Ellyn" and I also looked at the whole list of municipalities in DuPage County, Illinois.
      • The DuPage County Parcel Viewer map, when the "Municipality" layer is checked, clearly labels the area between Glen Ellyn and Glendale Heights as "Uninc" with no municipality color.
      • GNIS ID 42964 (typoed) 421964 "North Glen Ellyn" shows the Census code as 53754 and the Census class code U6, meaning "Populated (Community) Place (except those associated with facilities). A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name." Contrast this with Glen Ellyn, Illinois, which like most incorporated municipalities, has two GNIS entries: GNIS ID 421819, which has census class code P1, meaning "Populated Place that is also an incorporated place with the same name and the same Census Code"; and "Village of Glen Ellyn", GNIS ID 2398972, census class code C1, meaning "Incorporated Places. An active incorporated place that does not serve as a county subdivision equivalent." --Closeapple (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bnnnperdue:: What did you use to decide that "North Glen Ellyn" is incorporated as a village, or has a known amount of population? You seem to have done this with other places too. --Closeapple (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable place and possible hoax. It's not even listed as a CDP. [94] says so. This is in no way accurate and may be a deliberate hoax. Smartyllama (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since this place was supposedly just incorporated 5 months ago and USGS.gov seems to think it has a valid census code, let's hold off on deleting this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorporated without DuPage County having it on their GIS maps for jurisdiction and taxes, and without the Illinois Secretary of State having it published as incorporated, and with no online news coverage of there having been an incorporation referendum? Also, this article was created by Bnnnperdue (talk · contribs), who also modified and renamed Clearing, Chicago to claim that it had ceded from the City of Chicago, which is just about impossible; and also see Bnnnperdue's article Danada, Illinois being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danada, Illinois. --Closeapple (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a municipality. I mean kudos for the fake history, but this article is a complete hoax.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mpen320 (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax per the research of Closeapple, who basically proved a negative. It is rather incumbent on the article creator or others wanting to keep the article to verify the statements in the article with reliable sources. Edison (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax article built on top of a real populated place. It follows a pattern of articles by the same creator. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belmont, Illinois, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mammoth Springs, Illinois and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertha, Florida. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article but remove all the unverifiable stuff. It's clear that this is a real place, it's clear that some - but not all - of the content is bogus, just remove that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Call the actual City of Glen Ellyn at (630) 469 5000 and I'm sure they'll also explain to you that it's a hoax. •mpen320 (talk)
  • Delete as I actually considered keeping but there's still factual accuracy questionability with nothing suggesting better because of it. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to save here; North Glen Ellyn isn't a village, and the map is probably copied from some other place. If we want to have an article about the unincorporated community, we might as well start one from scratch. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Village of Glen Ellyn seems to think the supposed area this community exists in is still part of their village. See a map from their website showing much of the area in question to be unincorporated. Sorry, hoax. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Bailey[edit]

Jason Bailey (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 NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:42, 25 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Barnes (ice hockey)[edit]

Joe Barnes (ice hockey) (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 NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and doesn't meet the notability criteria for hockey players.Mdtemp (talk) 14:23, 28 June 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. As Michig noted in his relisting comments, the contributions in favour of deletion were limited in their depth with no reasoning. No more have been forthcoming, while the addition of sources has vastly improved this article. I'm satisfied there's a sufficient consensus to close this albeit concise debate as a keep. KaisaL (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firoza Begum (actress)[edit]

Firoza Begum (actress) (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: as non-notable performer. Quis separabit? 02:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Source is given, notable enough. Filpro (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable performer , Samat lib (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need contributions of a better quality than simply stating notable/not notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I added six references to the article and updated. There is not much information about her but she was very famous in India in the 20's and 30s. The most solid one is that she is featured in a 2013 documentary about the most famous Jewish Indian actresses of the time.MB (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as more references have been added to the article enabling WP:BASIC to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patryk Wezowski[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Patryk Wezowski (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 still needs better revisiting and attention as not only am I confirming my PROD: "Although apparent with information and sources, the coverage is not convincing of the needed substantial significant coverage for his own independent notable article and the information is simply about the press and events he's been involved with. My own searches have actually found nothing better at all and he's also certainly not notable as an author as WorldCat only shows 55 library holdings. There's also no merge or move target so there's nothing to suggest the history contents can at least be saved thus, with this questionability, deletion is the best option.", there's still nothing convincing as the 1st AfD suggested those listed links there were not convincing enough. Notifying 1st AfD commenters Piotrus, Ohnoitsjamie and Jodi.a.schneider and also AfC accepter Tachs. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 10:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patryk Wezowski (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)

Deprodded. I stand by my original rationale: "I am afraid this entry may be failing Wikipedia:Notability (people). No mainstream, reliable sources seem to provide any significant coverage of that person." Pinging User:Tachs, User:Jodi.a.schneider. Creator notified. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Quoted in a few reliable sources, but that doesn't satisfy WP:BIO, which requires non-trivial third party coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am here to give my concern on the flags raised on current article page. I created this page because I am a big fan of Patryk Wezowski and his lectures on Body Language. This made me create a wikipedia article on him. I started reading the guidelines and asked someone in the IRC chat to create the article for him. But they suggested I should go for creating the article myself. I created this article as I found him notable for cbs, fox, harvard, tedx, his books and an award winning documentary. References for these are already used in the article. Wezowski is the executive producer of the award-winning documentary Destressed, winner at Garden Stage Film Festival [95][96] this is also mentioned at the end of the interview here: [97] He was awarded in the Garden State Film Festival.I have read about the general notability and I find that he falls under the general notability criteria. Though I tried to keep the langauge neutral still if admin finds the language written as advertising then I would request other contributers to tweak it for neutrality. I would also request admins to clear the orphan issue as I have no idea to get it clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie.rodricks (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The rationale behind accepting this article was that I found the subject of the article to be notable, established by adequate third party references and the area of his work, worthy of reference for any encyclopedia user. As the cardinal reason for checking on an encyclopedia is for reference and not for random reading, I felt the subject should not be denied space. --jojo@nthony (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. WP:NOT, WP:ADVERT. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep I don't think this is a subject to debate as he is notable in Belgium and outside too. I strongly agree with Tachs(jojo@nthony). As per the notability criteria if a person is notable in a country and has national media appearances then his article can be created. I would like to vote for his notability.He has been listed in national media of Belgium and here are the links to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentin1958 (talk • contribs) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]The links showing his notability outside are already used on the project page.
  1. ^ Standaad.be
  2. ^ Vandaag.be
  3. ^ Goedgevoel.be
  4. ^ Gva.be
  5. ^ Feda.belgium.be
  6. ^ Deredactie.be
  7. ^ Deredactie.be
Comment These sources are about one single aspect of his work: the Center for Body Language. He is not forefronted in any of this. As he an "Antwerp specialist" it seems reasonable that he would be more widely quoted in Belgium than elsewhere. However, it doesn't seem to me that simple quotes establish his notability. Of the links you give, this, this, and [98] do seem to talk about him significantly. The article as written would be better condensed into microexpressions in my opinion. If we are going to keep an article, it needs to be pared down until it is not promotional and focuses on e.g. the newspaper articles given.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2014 (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. MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Object Data Manager[edit]

Object Data Manager (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 be a notable component of the OS such that it needs to be merged with the AIX article, and as it is unsourced, I don't believe it is a merger candidate. MSJapan (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to IBM AIX. Does not need to be independently notable to be included there. Does not need need to be sourced to be included there. The only concern would be WP:V. Has this material been challenged or is it likely to be challenged. Absolutely not. This is an uncontroversial topic and, as with most technical topics, is in long-term slow-motion development and should not be WP:DEMOLISHED. ~Kvng (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Well, I suppose we can ignore WP:UNSOURCED if you want, but I wouldn't; if we're going to have specific "examples of data stored", that needs to be verified, the burden of which is citation. If the claim is made that it is unique, that is a very specific/extraordinary claim and must be cited. That interaction is performed via API is a specific claim of functionality that needs to be cited. That users are provided with command-line utilities is a specific claim of interface, and thus needs to be cited. Without citations, this might as well be made up, and I've just addressed almost everything in the article except the name. MSJapan (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take WP:UNSOURCED to read on a merge. Merging is not adding. The material is already in the encyclopedia, we're just moving it. Merge first and then let editors of the target article work out any WP:V issues. ~Kvng (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Understanding the ODM is an essential part of AIX sysadmin. A simple WP:BEFORE-style search shows many RS. I added 6 sources to the article, 5 of which are secondary RS and 3 of those are books. Multiple in-depth reliable sources show the topic to be notable. A notable topic and an article with no major insurmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a separate article. This is AIX's equivalent of Windows Registry. It is important to device driver writers as well as system administrators. AIX's mechanism for storing system information in this way sets it apart from other Unix systems. It was created so that new devices could be added to a system without stopping the machine and rebuilding the kernel. In my incarnation as a UNIX system programmer I endured a move from Unix to AIX. There are independent references. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there is enough RS that mentions this to demonstrate notability as an independent article. A search for the exact phrase "AIX Object Data Manager" on Google Scholar gets 11 hits; removing "AIX" gets more hits (not all of which are about the article topic, but some probably are.) Likewise the exact phrase "AIX Object Data Manager" gets 16 results on Google Books; several of these might be discounted as being IBM RedBooks, but there is at least 5 books mentioning it which can't be dismissed in this way. (And once again, searching for "Object Data Manager" will find more hits, some of which are likely about this, but some are also about other things with the same name.) SJK (talk) 07:40, 27 June 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 List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (L). Consensus is that there are insufficient reliable sources for notability.  Sandstein  06:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Lang (SS officer)[edit]

Hermann Lang (SS officer) (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 notability guidelines (low ranking), nor WP:SOLDIER, as no source for the Knight's Cross has been provided. The article has been tagged since Jan 2016. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I found no credible references on either the Knight's Cross or Lang in particular. The only websites were Wikipedia clones, and the only books appeared to be Waffen-SS romances. GABgab 17:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a classic example of an editor deleting large amounts of text and sources then nominating it for deletion. There were several sources on this article prior to their deletion by the nominator. Please check the article history for such behaviour when supporting a deletion nomination. A check of "what links here" would show that his award is fully cited on the list at List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (L) to Scherzer and Fellgiebel, including his rank at the time, the date of award and his position at the time of award. It is not that hard to make such checks before nominating for deletion or supporting deletion. All of this information should have been available to editors considering deletion, yet it is not, due to the deletion of significant parts of the article prior to its nomination. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's the article as of January 2016 after it's been tagged "Unreliable sources": Hermann Lang. The article used the following web sites for citations:
    • axishistory.com,
    • www.frontkjemper.info and
    • www.waffen-ss.no,
none of which are RS and possibly extremely dubious. frontkjemper.info is an online forum; waffen-ss.no appears to be a Waffen-SS fan page and/or a collector site. I believe 6 months is a sufficient window to improve an article and establish notability. The subject fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Add: Per suggestion on my Talk page, I checked for "Hermann Lang" in the Neue Deutsche Biographie. I was unable to locate an entry for this year of death. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (L). Kierzek (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: per Kierzek above, given that the award is verified but significant coverage hasn't been established. Sources verifying the award appear to have been deleted from the article. I am uncertain as to why this was, but I do not see a policy reason for it. Please do not do as you did here: [99], particularly prior to an AfD. Just because a book is unused, doesn't mean it should removed. It aids readers in finding other sources for their own research, or to improve articles. Please see the guidance at Wikipedia:Further reading. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nom's comment: Here's the Jan 2016 version of the article which has been tagged Unreliable sources. I believe that 6 months is sufficient time to improve an article, by establishing notability or providing citations. As far as sources go, they included a non-RS work by Henschler, Henri; Fey, Willi (2003). Armor Battles of the Waffen-SS, 1943–45, as well as Fellgiebel which is more of a directory, with an individual entry being a just a line (please see Sample). I don't see a point in keeping sources not used for citations when non-RS citations (frontjkemper, axishistory) have been specifically challenged (and no RS citations have been provided). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 26 June 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. I'm sufficiently satisfied that there's compelling arguments to close this as a keep. After two relistings with minimal further input I fail to see such a consensus forming as to make it actionable to delete this article. KaisaL (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trackr[edit]

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

Non-notable app.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 09:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 09:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Press releases do not confer notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Of course they are press releases. The way the system works is that corporate PR operators write pieces for publication in trade journals and lazy journalists publish them as they are. A symbiotic relationship. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Nah, you're incorrect in this case. Here's one example: in this TechCrunch article, the author, Kyle Russell, states (in part):

I personally found the TrackR most useful right inside my apartment, which is currently in a state of organized chaos. Everything looks like a mess, but it’s all in the right place. The problem with this mode of organization is that eventually you forget which bin holds that backup pair of headphones."

It's absurd to describe this source as though if the article was written by the company's marketing department and then the author simply added their name atop the article. This is obviously not the case; it's an independent article published by a reliable, independent source. It's also rather insulting to the authors of said articles to mischaracterize their work in this manner. It seems that you've already made up your mind, though, regardless of the actual reality of the matter. It comes across that you may not have even bothered to actually read the articles I posted herein. Oh well. North America1000 02:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the sources being brought forward meeting our notability guidelines. The app is notable. DeVerm (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:45, 25 June 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satna Titus[edit]

Satna Titus (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 notable. Acted only in one local movie. Not much references as well. Fails WP:NARTIST, WP:MODEL, WP:ENT KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 10:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If she gets in another film in the future, she might pass notability guidelines, but she does not at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She might not pass WP:NARTIST but she easily passes WP:BASIC ([100] [101] [102] [103] [104]), does she not? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Draft instead as the coverage above could be enough to keep and improve, although improvement would not be widely ranged given only the current filmography, thus this is better deleted and Drafted if needed instead. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for 2 reasons - WP:TOOSOON and undisclosed COI editing. The subject is essentially known for acting in 1 movie. If you look at the references, ([105] [106] [107] [108] [109]), all of these are in the context of the movie and is essentially WP:BLP1E. There is nothing which suggests that the subject is notable independent of the single movie. This is too soon to have a Wikipedia article. In addition, the article is one in a series of similar articles (about Telugu film actors) where I have observed undisclosed COI editing. I could not find sources online for some of the details in the article. That the article creator managed to get hold of these facts indicates that there is a possibility of contact between the article creator and the subject. Delete as this is not notable and Wikipedia is being used for promotion, violating WP:NOTPROMO --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 03:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anji Play[edit]

Anji Play (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 John from Idegon (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working with Ms. Cheng and AnjiPlay, so I am definitely not a neutral editor or third party. AnjiPlay is very much a real thing and there are a number of references from reputable third party Chinese language sources. Fewer references exist in English because AnjiPlay is very new to contexts outside of China. I am not sure if this supports an argument to delete or keep the page, but I think it is objectively accurate to say that AnjiPlay is notable based on its current status in China and the references that support that status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseRC (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the original AnjiPlay Wikipedia entry was not authored by me, nor, to my knowledge, by anyone affiliated with AnjiPlay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseRC (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, have added some citations which may improve notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 27 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lifted (EP)[edit]

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

A music album that has not been released yet can not be notable for Wikipedia. Mar11 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Aust331 (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The album still does not have a release date, and it's possible it will never be released. YG Entertainment is known for announcing things that don't happen for years, if ever. Random86 (talk) 09:58, 25 June 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) 07:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Fallon[edit]

Joe Fallon (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 NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 26 June 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) 07:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rerez[edit]

Rerez (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)

Unnotable YouTube channel. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 23:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a big fan of Shane's channel: it's great, it has a loyal audience, it's entertaining and informative and the article about it here should be deleted because it doesn't meet our commonly held notability requirements and falls foul of a couple of the lines set out in WP:NOT. Which is a shame, because the videos really are great. But there we go. ◦ Trey Maturin 01:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritesh Agarwal[edit]

Ritesh Agarwal (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 No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. Agarwal's article looks like an advertisement & promotion page of the person and his new venture, who has done lots of PR online but didn't not received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems a good young business person from India but not notable. Vinay089 (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'KEEP!' extremely notable. OYO Rooms has become the talk of the town, definitely noteworthy.
  • Comment I feel user Aayushrai98 is created only to support Agarwal's article, because of no history. I'm proceeding to report about this fake account. This activity of user Aayushrai98 makes this process more clear that Agarwal is trying to protect his article with PR. Vinay089 (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article was created by an SPA and that is the first indication that someone is not notable. My personal view of this is WP:TOOSOON. Additionally, if the subject is simply the CEO of another company, then WP:NOTINHERITED applies. The claim of Forbes "30 under 30" is actually not a good claim: It is not an award but simply an article. In addition, the 30 under 30 restricts itself to "Consumer Tech" and I do not look at it as a claim of notability. The business insider article is also simply an article - an opinion of a contributor and not a recognised award. Add to that the persistent editing seeking to promote the subject and I am going with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic errors of numerical methods of ODE discretization[edit]

Dynamic errors of numerical methods of ODE discretization (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 going to go WP:OR on this one. Basically a definition of a mathematical method, and the article was created by one of the authors of the first reference. It seems to just be a Runge-Kutta method, but it's not listed as a Runge-Kutta method. There's basically no context for this; we don't have a usage example, and the ability to understand what this is about probably requires a PhD in theoretical mathematics. MSJapan (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to find any mention of dynamical characteristic in this ODE context independent of the preprint, this Wikipedia article, or derivatives of the WP article. Without independent reliable sourcing, the topic fails notability per WP:GNG and the complete lack of independent sourcing means there is nothing verifiable to merge or to redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I seem to be on a 50/50 keep/delete schedule with MSJapan. I have been exposed to theoretical mathematics for years but can not remember anything about dynamic errors with real and imaginary dynamic characteristics... and yet I find this exact string here: [110] That still does not make a good reference and thus we must conclude that the article fails the notability guideline. DeVerm (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The overall consensus appears to be that this is ultimately a case of WP:NOTNEWS enhanced by initial beliefs that the incident was going to be larger than it was. There's a lot of ifs and hypotheticals about what could have been in the only keep argument and I'm happy to yield to those on the other side of the debate. KaisaL (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viernheim shooting[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This seems to be the act of some mentally ill person that fortunately did not result in any casualties. Investigators said the incident is most likely not terror-related. The police acted quickly and neutralized the threat before anything else could happen. Just a run-of-the-mill local crisis. Parsley Man (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, partially covered by Portal:Current events/2016 June 23. D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. International headlines, it certainly appears to be an attempt to create fear like a terrorist attacks in Aurora Colorado, Paris, Louisiana and Renton Washington. No need to try to delete every incident that resembles a terrorist attack even if it is not connected to a recognized terrorist group. The man clearly intended to use terrorist attire, weapons and tactics as he had a hand grenade, explosives belt, balaclava, combat boots, long gun and ammunition belt over his shoulder. If man had been given training an a mission by a terrorist group, he clearly could have done just as much damage as an actual terrorist. If there were a category for incidents where disturbed people only carry out a foiled attack for personal rather than terrorist reasons, this would be applicable. Why are only incidents with a high victim count the only ones that are notable, and why are attempted terrorist attacks with international coverage considered non-notable enough to justify deletion? Bachcell (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 2015 Thalys attack had very few injuries, and no fatalities, yet it was kept because of the amount of lasting media coverage at the time. For this incident, media coverage pretty much stopped after the first day, with no articles about it that I can find, that were also published after 23 June. Also, while explosives were found on the shooter's body, I have not seen any sources confirming whether they were real or fake, though since there have been no updates on the situation, I can only assume they were fake. On a side-note, I did not recall any incident happening in Renton, Washington. What was that about? Parsley Man (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even in Germany news coverage stopped after two days. After SEK-Einsatz in Viernheim: Toter Geiselnehmer hatte nur Schreckschusswaffen (SWAT action at Viernheim: Death hostage-tage had only gas-weapons) and fake handgrenades, there was nothing. Some media freaked out and reported a lot of injuries and possible deaths, other media followed in the stampede. The source "US Weekly" has no facts only rumours and was published before the press conference of Hesse's interior minister. --EPsi (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Bachcell who is right in his assessment.BabbaQ (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, though I would like to highlight our early work on this page as an example of Wikipedia's fine work in responding to breaking news stories. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree! The work on this page was reporting rumours from tabloid papers when nobody knew nothing. Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper Nothing is lost if you wait some hours before starting an article about breaking news. But that is the Live-Ticker-Twitter way. In hindsight the section "Attack" is utter crap. --EPsi (talk) 13:05, 2 July 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 Bible quiz. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Bible Quizzing[edit]

Junior Bible Quizzing (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)

NN type of event, WP:NOTGUIDE. All the GHits for this seem to be company links to places selling materials for it, so while it might be widespread, it's isn't notable or significantly covered. MSJapan (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bible Quiz - Better off merged than deleted imho –Davey2010Talk 01:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. There are no sources in the article, so there's nothing to merge. That's not a "delete because of the current state of the article" that's a "it's not notable and there's nothing to merge"). Furthermore we need a reason to retain a redirect. What is it? If someone finds reliable sources independent of the subject to add to the bible quiz article, then he/she can add that content at any point, regardless of the way this AfD is closed. That's not merging. Merging is taking content from one article and incorporating it into another in some fashion, and no close should be based on a directive to include unsourced content into another article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:58, 25 June 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 WP:G4. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim abdalkarem[edit]

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

No claim to notability. —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. The page's only references are mostly dead links or Youtube videos. Meatsgains (talk) 05:11, 25 June 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_June_25&oldid=1142622014"