Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 March	14 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IRacing Sprint Cup Series 2016[edit]

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

This article is a pure copy of 2016 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, tweaked to be for an online virtual NASCAR racing league (which we do have an article on: IRacing.com). The author has used the same text from the live NASCAR article but changed the drivers to apparently match the drivers in the virtual online league. My A7-Web speedy was declined as having credible assertions of notability, which it is easy to see all came from the NASCAR article. Other than the title, the online league is not mentioned anywhere in the article.

The author won't engage in discussion, and when CSD tagged, "contests" the tag by simply restating the title on the talk page.

I don't think redirects to IRacing.com are appropriate, as those would A:be free advertising, and B: are implausible redirects since one would have to type the target article's name, and then keep typing another couple dozen characters. To me these are still A7-Web speedies, but I'm not going to edit war over that, so I bring it here.

Lastly, the author has created several others in the same vein:
IRacing NASCAR Sprint Cup Series
IRacing NASCAR Xfinity Series
2016 IRacing NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Crow^Caw 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Add IRacing 2016 Xfinity Series to the list. The only iRacing series that has some notability is the NASCAR Peak Antifreeze Series because it is sanctioned by NASCAR. – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 16:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All on this page except for the IRacing.com article. They are virtual racing series and they have no indication of notability (WP:GNG). Royal broil 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete C&pasted from an article about a RL event, but does not mention that the subject has been changed into an online game (I...). Should have been speedy tagged as vandalism (crude fandom action). -- Ben Ben ^(talk) 10:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of this was copied from the same article with changed drivers. Also, does having the crew chiefs' names count as a BLP violation if that's not what they're really doing? I don't play iRacing, so I don't know if crew chiefs actually do "crew chief" for drivers. Zappa 24 Mati 18:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election in Putnam County, Indiana, 2008[edit]

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

Per AusLondonder, more than 3,000 counties exist in the U.S., and it's not that necessary to have separate county-by-county result pages. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Parsley Man (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously endorsing the arguments of the nom AusLondonder (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need to have separate county-by-county presidential election result pages, as it is state level results that determine the electoral college outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what is so special about this county. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. No need for articles of this kind.--JayJasper (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Millburn Pool[edit]

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just an average public pool, nothing special, no sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and WP:NOTGUIDE. A non-notable swimming pool. Could be speedy deleted A7, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election in Putnam County, Indiana, 2012[edit]

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

Per AusLondonder, more than 3,000 counties exist in the U.S., and it's not that necessary to have separate county-by-county result pages. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Parsley Man (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously endorsing the arguments of the nom AusLondonder (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need to have separate county-by-county presidential election result pages, as it is state level results that determine the electoral college outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & others. No need for articles of this kind.--JayJasper (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zippy Shell[edit]

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

Minor company, sourced by press release & minor noticess. Promotional article, with excessive details of no interest except to prospective customers. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I mentioned with my PROD, searches found only expected coverage and none of it better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It took a while to go through all that link spam and I am here to report that that part of my life was wasted. There was nothing there except a lot of routine coverage of minor events, personnel changes, financing activities, new location openings, etc. Nowhere in that list did I find anything resembling a reliable independent secondary source discussing the subject in detail as required to establish notability under WP:GNG nor was I was able to find one by Googling. Msnicki (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to have enough available sources to be WP:GNG. --Crwarren06 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article appears to satisfy the criteria of WP:ORG. A company which secured an investment of $25 million in 2015 is surely notable. Silverado60 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. There is absolutely nothing in WP:ORG to indicate that just because someone invested a lot of money in this company, that makes them notable. Nothing whatsoever. Period. You need more than a WP:BIGNUMBER to establish notability, you need actual reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail. All it takes is two to be multiple. I challenge you to find even one. Msnicki (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if we did have a quantitative notability standard, which is something I would support, $25 million would surely come on the non-notable side of it. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that despite a list of links that suggest a degree of coverage in the business sector, if you look at them closely you'll see they are for the most part perfunctory regurgitations of the companies own press releases. The single reference that might suggest some sort of independent coverage (DC Inno. 30 Dec. 2015) merely list the company among 9 other successful 2015 startups. Simply existing as a successful start up doesn't automatically translate into being notable. And I also agree that a $25 million investment is not out of the ordinary. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thottempudi Pardhu[edit]

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

Autobiography that fails to show WP:NACADEMICS. Bazj (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Masters-prepared assistant professor. H-index only 2. Member but not Fellow of IEEE. Almost no independent coverage of this subject. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected a sandbox with the same content to here, whcih was cut and pasted, so if this is deleted, you may as well delete User:Pardhu.t07/sandbox too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is about a graduate student ... archetypical WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not pass WP:PROF#C1 [1] or any other notability criterion. The article describes membership in IEEE as if it's an honor, but it's something anyone can do simply by paying the membership fee. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election in Adams County, Indiana, 2012[edit]

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

More than 3,000 counties exist in the US. Not necessary to have separate county-by-county result pages AusLondonder (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's definitely a lack of info and no indication of notability. Plus, it seems to be relying on a single source. I agree that there's no need to display county-by-county results. Parsley Man (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need to have separate county-by-county presidential election result pages, as it is state level results that determine the electoral college outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., Parsley Man, and Cullen.--JayJasper (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ogun Erdem[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was No indication this person has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. This remains valid, as agents are not generally notable. PROD was contested on the grounds that sources had been added. However, these do not amount to significant coverage, in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG as none of the references which are reliable sources provide significant coverage. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this individual has been the subject of significant reliable coverage in himself. The players he represents may be notable and individual transfers as a piece of business may have generated significant media attention, but I see nothing on the individual himself, he is only tangentially associated with notable acts. Fenix down (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Duel (1985 video game)[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 14:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 14:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. No meaningful hits in custom RS search. No entries for content in game listings (like MobyGames) or review aggregates (like Metacritic). No hits in contemporary video game magazines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Commodore 64 games (A–M) or delete. If Lemon64 says it exists, then I trust them. However, there doesn't seem to be any documentation about this anywhere online. If someone can locate offline coverage, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do remember that likely any coverage of the topic when it came out was in non-digital print media, possibly deflating the notability of the game. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There would normally be some indication of this in forums and at least a trace of some coverage in the MobyGames entry's section on criticism czar 22:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is fair enough. as it is I think I agree with the other editors here. There isn't any evidence of notability. Delete. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as this could simply redirect but this is still questionable overall for improvements and notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notable sources. I'm all for recreating the article if sources are found (I cannot find any myself). ZettaComposer (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Internet Professionals' Community (BIPC)[edit]

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

Does not pass the guideline Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source cited is the organization itself. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and EBSCO found:

Two recaps of a 2014 BIPC press conference about an upcoming event [2], [3] - these contain no independent journalistic analysis, they're no better than a press release
One article about the one-day 2014 conference [4]
One sentence in an article about a 2015 tech expo [5]

WP:ORGSIG asks us "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on [anything]". It may be unrealistic of the author to expect an 18-month old organization to have achieved enough, and consequently attracted enough notice by the world at large, to justify a Wikipedia article. Does not meet WP:ORG. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Keith Latman[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Borders on vanity page. References are lacking substance and are mostly quotes, about companies (not individual), or PR related. Article extensively edited by COI. reddogsix (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the reasons stated above.*Treker (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too promotional. The vast majority of sources seem to be about Microworkz and its troubled history, not biographical details about Latman. One of the sources, this interview from Bloomberg, actually is about him, but I notice that the fact he pleaded guilty to bankruptcy fraud is missing from this Wikipedia article. Yes, it would be simple enough to add that line to it, but the whole thing would need to be rewritten, anyway, to get rid of the promotional tone. For a questionably notable person, it's better to have no article than a promotional one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Math[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are lacking and the majority are for exhibits at a gallery he supports. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. reddogsix (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not demonstrate coverage in independent reliable sources, and I don't see anything else online that would indicate such. Google results are mostly social media, official websites, and articles written by the subject himself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a bit worse than what the nomination says. Most of the references are from his own gallery. So the notability claimed for him is largely the notability claimed by him. Delete (though I'll change my mind if somebody can come up with entirely different, and good, evidence for notability). -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:CREATIVE. No works in any collection, no exhibitions, etc ... Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that WP:GNG is met. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Copeland[edit]

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

Players does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON standards. Player has not played in a professional NFL game. He wasn't a notable college player either.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:GNG (Cbl62's linked sources below). I'm not very happy that the nominator didn't poke around to see some of these links before nominating. That said, it's hard to see why the subject has attracted so much individual coverage -- but that's not for me to judge in terms of inclusion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable football player....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NGRIDIRON is an inclusionary standard. A college football player can also survive if he passes either WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. Under prong 3 of NCOLLATH ("Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team"), Copeland arguably passes. National media coverage includes: (1) this from USA Today, and (2) this from Fox News Sports. Additional coverage factoring into a GNG analysis (significant coverage in multiple reliable sources) includes: (3) this, and (4) this, both from The Courier-Journal, and (5) this, (6) this, and (7) this from the Bradenton Herald, (8) this from The Times-Picayune, (9) this and (10) this from the Lexington Herald-Leader, and (11) this from Evansville Courier & Press. There are also interviews (12) here from the Orlando Sentinel and (13) here from WLKY. Whether the analysis is done under NCOLLATH, prong 3, or GNG, the result is the same: Keep. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found to satisfy WP:GNG. The USA Today article shows that he got attention for receiving a medical hardship exemption to gain an unusual sixth year of college eligibility. Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After discounting the sockpuppetry, the nomination is uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Horn[edit]

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

BLP article about a musician who worked as an recording artist (once) and touring drummer for a notable band. He is not listed as a band member. Other memberships are in not notable bands. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Ben Ben ^(talk) 15:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does irrevocably meet WP:MUSICBIO requirements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GODGODGODGODGOD (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 March 2016 UTC+1— GODGODGODGODGOD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

NOTE: GODGODGODGODGOD has been blocked as a sock of the article's creator. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Three.onefourone. -Elektrik Fanne (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. As a minor part of some minor bands, he hasn't received the dedicated coverage necessary to have his own article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

other notable bands, performances, recordings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharingiscaringguy (talk • contribs) 00:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sharingiscaringguy also blocked as a sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Tlale[edit]

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

Despite claims of notability, can find nothing of real substance. TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure I understand the deletion rationale here. Being showcased at two of the four major fashion weeks should be a sufficient claim of notability, and that statement carries a reference to a reliable source. --Pgallert (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A media source outside of his home country describes him as "world-acclaimed", has won awards. Can't see how this article could have been nominated for either speedy or now deletion. Greenman (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is that the coverage is trivial and the "international source" flaky. New York, London, Paris Munich....nobody is talking about this guy. Google him and see.TheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are active in nominating content for deletion, I suggest taking a look at WP:BIAS. Wikipedia suffers from notable African content almost instantly being nominated for deletion by editors with a North American/European worldview. Greenman (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Nobody is talking about this guy. Google him and see." Hey, thanks for the suggestion! I Googled and found lots of name-checks in books, not just one or two nods, but at least a dozen explicit name-checks and acknowledgements of him and his work. I see lots of news hits for his collections in a variety of sources, showing he has ongoing coverage.

So I went and looked him up on HighBeam. 295 articles mentioning him between 2006 and 2016. Looks pretty much like ongoing coverage. Lots of them are specifically about him, from South African newspapers such as The Independent, The Star, and The Tribune, and surprisingly, quite a number of articles from a Sri Lankan paper called The Colombo. I wouldn't call this "trivial coverage" - the sheer volume and breadth, across so many different papers, indicates he is very notable in his own country. For example, one article, Refashioning Africa, from The Sunday Independent (South Africa), dated October 30, 2011; while ostensibly about the VERY notable Ozwald Boateng, devotes several paragraphs and coverage to Tlale as an example of a local South African designer, discussing his work, business situation, and career up to that date at length. There's a lot more of this kind of coverage over the last 10 years. This guy is obviously notable enough for an article. Mabalu (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since I'm the one who started his Wikipedia page and you, user TheLongTone (talk) tagged the page for speedy deletion not once but twice, I made it a point that I read through the policy for speedy deletion and I've found this interesting line that reads "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it must not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations". And this page survived your first deletion tag. May you please point me where the copyrights violations of this page are so that I can remedy this? Bobbyshabangu _talk 11:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bobby, although the log shows two entries, they are from the same day and time, so that's probably a technical glitch rather than a repeated speedy deletion request. Also, to first tag for speedy deletion and then, if speedy is declined, to nominate the article for a normal deletion discussion, as has happened here, is not only allowed but standard practice. Nobody suggested plagiarism but it is always safe to check anyway. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say it, but there are an awful lot of entrenched editors on Wikipedia who would rather see editors they disagree with kicked off site than have to work with them. If they decide an editor is in the wrong camp (whatever camp that might be) they can and will make that editor's life hell by reverting everything s'he adds and calling administrators down every time s'he does something incorrect. It's all well-within the bounds of what's allowed on Wikipedia, and it is almost impossible to identify or question (since no one will ever admit that they are reverting edits as a form of harassment). I've seen a lot of new editors driven off the site by that kind of obnoxious behavior. Many entrenched editors view Wikipedia as a source of political power - a way to structure public information to accord with their worldview - and there is no meaningful 'intervention' method on project that will get them to be more encouraging or cooperative. Bobbyshabangu _talk 21:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, Bobby, and yes, I do notice the long list of deletion notices on your user talk. Watchlisting it got me to this deletion discussion. Yet much of Wikipedias bias is systemic, caused by the composition of its editor base and lack of perspective rather than bad intent. How often had I to point out that Tehran Times is a national newspaper just like e.g. the The Figaro is, so that notability is established by even one large article on a subject---Whether we should follow the particular narrative of either newspaper is a different question, though. We have to share English Wikipedia among all English-speaking countries, and Lesotho is as much a valued member as the UK is. That said, I wouldn't go as far as alleging intent in this particular case. --Pgallert (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets gng with ease...One might say overwhelmingly. I wonder if the nom's statement "nothing of substance" discounts fashion or African sources as non-substantive? This should be a snow keep.Jacona (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After discounting the sockpuppetry, the nomination is uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Horn[edit]

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

BLP article about a musician who worked as an recording artist (once) and touring drummer for a notable band. He is not listed as a band member. Other memberships are in not notable bands. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Ben Ben ^(talk) 15:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does irrevocably meet WP:MUSICBIO requirements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GODGODGODGODGOD (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 March 2016 UTC+1— GODGODGODGODGOD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

NOTE: GODGODGODGODGOD has been blocked as a sock of the article's creator. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Three.onefourone. -Elektrik Fanne (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. As a minor part of some minor bands, he hasn't received the dedicated coverage necessary to have his own article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

other notable bands, performances, recordings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharingiscaringguy (talk • contribs) 00:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sharingiscaringguy also blocked as a sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Noting that CSD G5 was not applicable here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template Monster[edit]

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

This is a promotional article created by Attedread, an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of Mamadoutadioukone. These (and other) accounts were blocked for paid content creation in violation of WP:COI. The sources cited in this article are press releases (WP:SPS), blog posts, and primary sources such as Alexa.com. Delete per WP:GNG, since this article's subject has not has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - tucoxn\^talk 15:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The other two articles created by the same user were both deleted for WP:CSD#G5: creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Editors should consider the same speedy deletion option for this article. - tucoxn\^talk 15:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Page reads like a company's about page. There is, in reality, only one reference. One is a repeat, two have no importance, and two are first party releases. The one reference is also not notable by any means. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 06:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I myself would've tagged this as G5 but it may be removed because of its history (despite the article still not being convincing to keep) and none of the listed coverage is enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Peacock[edit]

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

I tried to speedy this since all of these entries are red-linked but was reverted per WP:DABMENTION citing "valid dab page entries."

Because it's notability is questionable for some, I reduced it to two entries since the trainer may be notable and the character is based on a real person (the journalist) as indicated by this source, which reduce the entry to just two and the other will never be notable (WP:NOTINHERITED) other than being married to a Z-list celebrity. But again, this got reverted citing the same reasons, so rather than engaging in potentially an edit war, I thought it's best if this is left with others but then neither the Matt nor Matthew Peacock namespace has an article. Donnie Park (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: all valid dab page entry (and rather than just "being married to a Z-list celebrity", that one married her as the culmination of a tv reality show, making him worth at least a dab page entry). PamD 14:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now removed the "(Devil's Dust)" entry as it was an unnecessary link to a portrayal of the real person at "(journalist)", as pointed out above and below. Agree with BD2412's proposal to put the journalist as Primary Topic and move this dab page. PamD 16:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And have nominated the Matt Peacock (Devil's Dust) redirect for deletion at WP:RfD as it's unnecessary. PamD 16:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MOS:DABRL also applies. This is probably a WP:SPEEDYKEEP against criterion 1 given you don't appear to actually want the page deleted at this point, just edited down (?). The Devil's Dust line should be deleted since it's just a fictionalised/dramatised version of the real person (I've added a bit of crosslinking to the DD and KC articles). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and Move per bd2412's proposal below. (... and there I was just suggesting that "it may never warrant an article of its own"!). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move. I have researched the four "Matt Peacock" candidates and have concluded that the journalist is the primary topic of the group. The journalist, Matt Peacock, is a forty-year veteran of ABC News, as well as being the author of the lauded expose on asbestos in building materials, Killer Company. As noted above, the "Matt Peacock" in Devil's Dust is actually the same person (as portrayed by an actor) - Devil's Dust is a film version of Killer Company. As far as I know, we do not generally do not disambiguate real people from fictional portrayals of themselves (for example, Albert Einstein (disambiguation) contains no entry for Albert Einstein played by Walter Matthau in I.Q.). The horse trainer might be moderately notable in his field, but so far as I can find, is rarely referred to as anything but "Matthew". The reality show person is of no more than footnote notability. I have initiated a draft on the clearly notable journalist at Draft:Matt Peacock (journalist), and would propose moving the disambiguation page to Matt Peacock (disambiguation), and moving the draft to Matt Peacock. bd2412 T 15:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support and close I am happy with BD2412 proposal. Donnie Park (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, regarding reality TV MP, wouldn't his notability be a WP:BLP1E considering his only real form of notability had been just that show, plus as a model he is not Tyson Beckford/David Gandy notable. That was why I originally wanted to remove that entry, which leaves just two entries. Whilst I don't mind the proposed rationale, that would had made the disambiguation page redundent. Donnie Park (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move. I concur with BD2412. Red links are fine in a disambiguation page (to encourage writing the articles), and if an article is written on the journalist Matt Peacock, then we have a primary topic. clpo13_(talk) 16:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has not understood the difference between an article and a disambiguation page. 3 valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Monster High characters. MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Clops (Monster High)[edit]

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

This character isn't notable and the article doesn't have any references.*Treker (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 10:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added missing templates on top. Vipinhari || talk 10:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Delete and/or redirect. She appears in List of Monster High characters -- no better referenced, but briefer and unified (WP:NOPAGE). Only passing coverage found of her toys. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agreed with above. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 06:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was resolved. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Qatar Airways and Qatar SC fall under MOS:DABNOENTRY, meaning that this is effectively WP:TWODABS, with Qatar as the primary topic. sst✈ 10:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: have added the entries from the unnecessary dab page at Qatar, Iran. PamD 09:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Either of the pages need to be deleted. sst✈ 13:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than enough now to warrant disambiguation. And although it can be murky at times, partial title matches we've the entity is referred to elliptically by the base name are useful to include. older ≠ wiser 14:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pherowshuz[edit]

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

Sadly, no evidence of notability. This is another Nigerian musician struggling to gain international recognition through Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and had plans to nominate since none of this suggests anything better for the applicable musicians notability, searches found only a few expected local coverage pieces. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reason cited by nominator —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 19:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trust the nominator's expertise in evaluating the notability of Nigerian topics, and I see no evidence that this rapper is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas searches found nothing to suggest notability.Maihe101 (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Detensor[edit]

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

I approved this from the draft, Draft:The Detensor for which I know regret. The product looked legitimate, until I saw this. Comes out this is just a mattress, written by some COI or paid editors. Think this should be deleted or be taken to its draft. —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please don't blame User:UY Scuti for the claim of WP:PAY or WP:COI, as that is _my_ strong interpretation after getting sucked into another "what the heck is this mess??". The accumulated behavior pattern of the article author would make most anyone quite suspicious. (see the notes I plopped onto User:UY Scuti's talk page, followed by the author's "my hobby") So far the article refs are only to websites selling the gadget, one of which prominently features the inventor's face (oh, and the trademark registration site?). How much credit are we to give to a foam pad that's been around since 1978 but seems to not have any independent studies? Oh, and I found the reason for the sudden "rush of interest" by so many "different editors" in this commercial product, press release "Detensor Returns to US After 28-Year Absence". And I again apologize to User:UY Scuti for involving them just because they were doing a good turn for Wikipedia. Shenme (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be conflict of interest related promo spam with likely sockpuppeting going on as well. — Cirt (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (A10). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ગોરઠીયા મહાદેવ મંદિર[edit]

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

Gorthiya Mahadev Temple exists. Kartik Mistry ^talk 06:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have tagged this for CSD A10 as this Gujarati article provides nothing more than the exising (poorly-referenced) article in English. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Sergio Agüero[edit]

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

Not notable list of goals. These list is similar to some of the previous AfD for similar articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Gonzalo Higuaín and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by João Vieira Pinto and also the recently nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Javier Hernández.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CR7 (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CR7 (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the reason that it probably belongs to WP:FANCRUFT:

– CR7 (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - Per previous precedent and long-standing consensus, such lists are not notable unless the footballer is currently or was previously the most prolific scorer in the nation's history. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - top footballer kicks ball into a goal, why would that warrant a list? Donnie Park (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as cruft. C 679 12:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - COnsensus from numerous recent AfDs on similar lists is that a list is only notable if the player has at one time been their country's all time top scorer. Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Bergman[edit]

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

Fails WP:MILNG and WP:BIO. Vanity article written exclusively by Bergman SPAs. Coverage is either passing mentions or local in his hometown and in the town where he lived for most of his life (and where his son had lots of newspaper connections), and even then mostly obits or military mentions for minor medals.

Had two very improperly closed and messy AfDs in 2008: The first was closed after less than one day(!) by an involved non-admin with the rationale "there are too many improper AfD nominations from the same author. They should be listed in one AfD": [6]. So the nominator re-nominated in a bulk nomination along with Sherman Bergman, and that was closed in less than 5.5 days by a non-admin even though there were duplicate !votes, SPA !votes, and many of the !votes were actually about the Sherman Bergman article instead of this article: [7]. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Article was entirely created by a Bergman SPA sock farm (both registered and IP):

This article was entirely created by a Bergman SPA sock farm, who edited exclusively on Sherman Bergman and his father Hank Bergman, and any other article they could stick either of those names into:

FranciscoFWPerez (talk · contribs) (414 edits to Sherman Bergman, 32 edits to Hank Bergman)
Legwarmers1980 (talk · contribs) (320 edits to Sherman Bergman, 165 edits to Hank Bergman)
DavidToma (talk · contribs) (230 edits to Sherman Bergman, 13 edits to Hank Bergman)
CliffHarper (talk · contribs) (12 edits to Sherman Bergman, 3 edits to Hank Bergman)
Lennybaker (talk · contribs) (26 edits to Sherman Bergman, 2 edits to Hank Bergman)
Kikiloveslegwarmers (talk · contribs) (12 edits to Sherman Bergman, 1 edit to Hank Bergman)
216.199.194.237 (18 edits to Sherman Bergman, 5 edits to Hank Bergman)
4.234.102.75 (6 edits to Hank Bergman)
4.234.102.16 (2 edits to Hank Bergman)
4.234.99.64 (1 edit to Sherman Bergman, 2 edits to Hank Bergman)
4.234.57.22 (4 edits to Sherman Bergman, 10 edits to Hank Bergman)

All of the IP socks from 2006–2008 geolocate to Wichita, as does this clear talk-page posting by Bergman SPA sock DavidToma logged out in September 2008: [8]. All of the IP socks from 2009–present geolocate to Miami (where Hank Bergman lived for the last 60+ years of his life, and his son Sherman Bergman's hometown).

Between 2009 and 2014 Bergman SPA sockpuppet Legwarmers1980 uploaded 44 images and newspaper clippings referring to Hank Bergman and Sherman Bergman to Flickr: the Flickr account ID tag is "legwarmers1980", and the Flickr account is exclusively devoted to Hank Bergman and his son Sherman Bergman: [9]. These Flickr uploads by Legwarmers1980 constitute 15 of the 25 citations in this Wikipedia article.

-- Softlavender (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears that a Silver Star medal is the primary argument for notability, however, the guideline at WP:SOLDIER does not list the Silver Star, only the highest level medals. More than 100,000 soldiers have been given the Silver Star, so that's not really a good argument for notability. Binksternet (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article by Sherman Bergman socks, per Softlavender. Agree it does not meet WP:MILNG or WP:MILPEOPLE, as decorations are only of service medal and campaign medal types. Nor does subject even meet WP:GNG. I was reviewing this article for possible deletion before this nomination. X4n6 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only claim to fame is being awarded a third-level gallantry decoration. NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freya Mathews[edit]

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

I'm not convinced she meets WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR. she's written a few things but no high level awards nor peer recognition LibStar (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of multiple published works that are most certainly notable themselves. Also see: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Notably The Ecological Self went through multiple re-publications and received positive reception from numerous different sorts of academic reviews. — Cirt (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a GS h-index of 14, which is pretty good for philosophy, even though the work is in a popular area. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Literary work is sufficient for WP:PROF. Aeonx (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this is noticeable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art+Feminism[edit]

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

Delete This is a Wikipedia initiative, not a topic that is notable or appropriate for Wikipedia mainspace. Propose moving to Wikipedia:Meetup/Art+Feminism or other more relevant space BrillLyle (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely seems notable enough for it own article to me.*Treker (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable, independent sources reporting on this, enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The article is distinct from Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism in that it's a report on the event without the meta aspects of coordinating. Compare The Signpost (Wikipedia) and Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation) for other articles on Wikipedia/WMF aspects or initiatives. clpo13_(talk) 16:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage of Wikipedia's gender gap in independent reliable sources, and the Art+Feminism project has received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG Mduvekot (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable topic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And your idea to do this article -- shouldn't you recuse yourself? -- BrillLyle (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but you are right, I should say that I helped create the article (actually, I created a draft article, and the content of that draft was combined with another editor's draft, creating a new article). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia's attitude towards articles about itself is a little bit inconsistent where topics are of borderline notability, but there's been more than enough coverage of A+F to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)-[reply]
Keep, notable and internet-related important topic. Randy Kryn 18:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable AusLondonder (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand that some editors want to minimize the amount of navel-gazing that Wikipedia does, but there are enough sources already listed in this article to easily demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as topic has most certainly been the subject of independent reliable coverage from many varying sources over time. — Cirt (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the amount of sources, independent from Wikipedia and participants, it's definitely a stay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

60 Wrap$$[edit]

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

Painfully non-notable rapper, vague puffery notwithstanding. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant self promotion from single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.*Treker (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional article for a non-notable subject. GAB^Hello! 13:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. -- Ben Ben ^(talk) 18:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources, no charting songs/albums, not on a major label, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: entirely promotional article including a bad case of name-dropping. Not a shred of evidence of notability. Please delete. Fylbecatulous talk 12:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiana Bytyqi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX, although there is one source in her native language mentioning her in an article. JTtheOG (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage and fails WP:NBOX. Youth titles don't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sundowning (album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Insert CleverPhrase Here 01:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The album was reviewed by Exclaim!, Punknews and Sputnik. In addition to the AltPress feature mentioned (but is now a dead link) in the article, AltPress also featured This is Hell two months after the release of the album in this issue that would undoubtedly discuss touring/recording pertaining to the album. A fairly detailed article, largely pertaining to its reception, could be written from these sources. The band's article (This Is Hell (band)) suggests there were additional publications that reviewed the album that I could not find online (print only, perhaps?) and shows that a fairly detailed section on touring and promotion could be written as well. Fezmar9 (talk)
Keep. Coverage is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misfortunes (album)[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG guidelines. Searching for this online using google yields almost nothing. Insert CleverPhrase Here 01:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews from Allmusic and Absolute Punk are arguably sufficient. At the very least should be merged to the band article. --Michig (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Michig's sources, and the Alternative Press one also present in the article. 3 sources is technically enough, but even beyond that, I doubt these are the only three... Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avonair Curling Club[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable club/building. Searching for sources mostly results in brief mentions and hits for other unrelated curling clubs. I previously tagged this for speedy deletion as an unremarkable club, but this was declined on the grounds that the article is more about a building than a club. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; I can't find any reliable sources about it, only some of its members. And those are very sparse. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The majority of this article is a copyvio of [10], as either verbatim copy or overly-close paraphrasing. The remaining section (Leagues) either reads likes promotional copy or is trivia of no interest to general readers. Several world-class curlers have curled out of it (e.g., Randy Ferbey, David Nedohin, Kevin Martin (curler), Kevin Park, Heather Nedohin, Scott Pfeifer, Marcel Rocque) so there may well be enough information to create an article, but I think we would be better off to start anew. Meters (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to The V.I.P.s. Speedy redirected on 13 March 2016‎ by BD2412 (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 03:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The VIPs[edit]

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

The V.I.P.s is now a disambiguation page, and The V.I.P.'s now redirects to that page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily redirected. No need for further procedure here. bd2412 T 01:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gayatri Joshi[edit]

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

The actress is only-known for her role in Swades and no signiificant amount of coverages found for it. So better got it for its deletion nomination. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 February 2016‎

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

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

and through WP:INDAFD: "Gayatri Joshi" "गायत्री जोशी"

Looks to be wide coverage to meet WP:BASIC... hmmm... ? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As that singular film 12 years ago (mentioned as is proper in a BLP) is not the singular or sole assertion of notability, her failing WP:NACTOR is immaterial if it can be determined that she otherwise meets WP:BASIC or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO [11] for other facets of her life prior to and after acting, and if otherwise notable, she has plenty of time to in the future consider returning to film to then work up to that particular (and limited) SNG. Time for digging. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, clearly a celebrity in India, see [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] --Soman (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soman We are not a newspaper portal and these sources are just implementing Yellow journalism. Event parties and launches doesn't signify its coverages and only one film over its lifetime. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage confirm notability. And yellow journalism is journalism still, whether you like it or not. What we conclude here is that the individual in question had 1) a modelling career prior to Swades (and there are a number of news coverage hits prior to 2004), 2) Rose to nation-wide fame with Swades, 3) withdrew from the film industry but has (as shown above) remained in the public spotlight still (mainly due to her short film career, in part due to her modelling/pageant career, in part due her family situation). We do have articles on reality show personalities, socialities etc., in situations were there is significant coverage of said individuals in independent sources. --Soman (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* She was widely covered 10 years ago as an actress, now covered as Page 3 celebrity. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

we are even not promoting agency SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

promotional material may be removed from the article if any. but the subject meets WP:GNG. ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, do note that the nominator, in clear breach of wiki-etiquette, stroke out both of the 'keep' comments. I reverted that edit. --Soman (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and Userfy as although there may be enough, unless this is going to be outstandingly improved, this is still questionable as of this article's current status, so it's best moved aside until better. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After three relistings, this is all the commentary we are likely to get. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be recreated or usefied by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I-Access Investors[edit]

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

Not notable. Essentially all the refs are to mere listings or their own site. The google translation of the Apple daily site shows it to be a promotional interview. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best because my searches noticeably found nothing better and none of this better satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think they're probably notable for their cut-throat broker's premiums as documented by these sources - archive of 2010 newspaper article; video news 2011 of their system crash; 2012 newspaper article; article on their system crash in 2015. I've added their Chinese name to the "find sources" template above for editors who want to investigate further. Der yck C. 21:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wonder if DGG and Deryck Chan would consider drafting and userfying this if no one else comments. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of proper sources, there's no point in userifying. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 02:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Donis[edit]

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

Not yet notable architect : one book, not yet published, trivial awards, a handfull of projects, most still under construction DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy when needed as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam all found noticeable links but nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several notable projects. news stories and scholarly articles about the architect. The buildings are under construction, however this means they are being built and several appear to due for completion in coming months. Disagree that award from CNN or the Foreign Affairs Department of a country are trivial. Semantics000 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The CCTV Headquarters is notable and not still under construction The Dubai Frame is equally notable, even while unfinished. The ThyssenKrupp Elevator Award is not a trivial award at $100,000. Mduvekot (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the coverage is in a variety of both books and news, and the Dubai Frame would appear to be a new concept. It won the ThyssenKrupp Elevator Architecture Award 2009, selected by a jury of architectural peers. WP:CREATIVE — Maile (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 02:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Kupugani[edit]

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

Page is completely unreferenced, subject lacks coverage in reliable sources, and PROD has been removed twice. Meatsgains (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [Was Speedy Keep, but this is no longer timely.] Sorry for my strong terminology, but it is ~~idiotic~~[not socially astute] for Wikipedia to be trying to delete article on what is reportedly unique: a black-owned private summer camp of some type, without doing due diligence. The assertion that there is no sourcing is false: consider the external link to the camp's website...that is reasonably assumed to be the source. And the website includes "in the media" section that includes scanned copy of Harvard Magazine article and more that support facts in article.

No offense intended, but it was the nominator who twice prodded the article, violating rules for prods. It having been prodded twice is reason to lay off, not to delete it. Prods were properly removed.

Other recent AFDs (I presume nommed by different editors than here, but irking me) went after Vietnamese student groups and Thai student groups, potentially further alienating many (and at least one of those was deleted too, despite sources available and despite contrasting Wikipedia coverage of huge numbers of white American student sororities and fraternities that are far smaller and have less adequate sourcing). There are many summer camp articles. But hey, why not go for broke on another minority and clarify the message.... :( --do ncr am 02:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC) [20:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's possible this article could be salvaged, because I found mention of it in several national publications: the New York Times, USA Today, and NPR. I'll see if I can find more, and work these sources into the article, when I have more time. Ironically the NPR item disproves the claim to be the only black-owned summer camp in the US; see Camp Atwater. And the sources all describe it as a camp for girls, period. So the article needs a lot of work but I'll see what I can do over the next few days. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding sources. The "only" claim sounded suspicious: how would anyone know such a thing. Common problem that is a matter for editing. It would likely be true with some reasonable qualifications to be added. If claimed, it's likely it is one of few, or one of oldest, or only known one, or the like. Often best to say "it has been claimed to be". Tx. do ncr am 04:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say Keep, and I will watchlist this discussion; if the result is "keep" I will add citations to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Daryl Braithwaite[edit]

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

Non-notable product. This cannot be notable for the music it contains since all has appeared elsewhere; it is solely a lump of merchandise. It is as non-noyable as any sofa from World of Leather, for example. TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS/WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage of this bundled compilation of previously released material. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wahl Foundation[edit]

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

This is a part of the walled garden about Wahl family. I just deleted Tasha Wahl after closing an AfD, and I do not see much notability here either. As far as I am concerned, the article lacks reliable sources. Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG/WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Berenstain_Bears_books#The_Berenstain_Bears_and_Too_Much_TV. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 02:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Berenstain Bears and Too Much TV[edit]

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

The description is 100% fake. The book clearly states Mama Bear banned TV for a week in the house because Brother, Sister and Papa were watching too much TV. Anyone agree? --Funny Gardaland (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC) (P.S.: I think the guy who wrote this description watched too much GoAnimate...)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. a gsearch brings up no reviews or anything which might warrent a separate article beyond what is here Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The book does exist (I read my copy to tatters) and was made into an episode of the TV show, but the overall notability is still in question. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Berenstain_Bears_books#The_Berenstain_Bears_and_Too_Much_TV. The book is mentioned here and there as an example of the BB series or as an example of a book that dealt with excessive TV watching, but it's never in any true depth enough to show independent notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question, i considered redirect for this title, but how is this title any more notable for a redirect compared to the others or should we then consider creating redirects for the other 100 or so titles in the list (or the 300 titles metioned in the lead of Berenstain Bears)? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't suggest a redirect for all of the books, but what pushed it for me as a redirect was that someone had created an entry and that the book does get frequent mention in the press as an example of books that deal with this topic. None of those mentions are heavy enough to really show independent notability, but it does suggest that it's possible that it could be a search term. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, redirects for this series should only be judged on a case by case basis - if they're mentioned frequently in places other than a notification of a release, like as an example of something, and they've been made into a TV episode (or similar media) then they'd warrant a redirect. One or the other alone might not be enough, but together it'd be likely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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