Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 March	24 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McCann v UK[edit]

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

Article does not establish why the case is significant. Ethanlu121 (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legal cases published by the highest court of a jurisdiction and cases that set binding precedent within a jurisdiction are generally considered notable and worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. In this case, we are dealing with a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, which sets binding precedent for the Court of Justice of the European Union. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Ethanlu121 (talk) 13:09, 24 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) 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Aesthetics of Lostness[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a website to host quotes, it is an encylopedia. This article should be deleted, and moved to Wikiquote if it is not there already. Ethanlu121 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of its notability. No refs, no categories. Nothing. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per a book source I found (it won't let me link it here for some reason without it messing up the page) it looks like this was also the title of an article he wrote, likely non-fiction. This could probably be added to the list of his non-fiction works at Ray_Bradbury_bibliography#Non-fiction and just redirected there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing relevant to an encyclopedia present in the article. No sources, assertion of any notability or context, for that matter. Ciridae (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. I think I can see where this is coming from. Westfield_Horton_Plaza links to The Aesthetics of Lostness because the essay played a role in Jon Jerde's development. It's probably better to add a source for that claim to the Westfield_Horton_Plaza article, like this one, than to link to an article that isn't written yet. I'll go add the source and remove the link now. Mduvekot (talk) 23:03, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush (swedish band)[edit]

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

NN metal band. Appears to fail both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. The sources mentioned don't seem to be sufficient (Metal Temple is a minor e-zine and Metalholic appears to be 3 guys in Texas) and I haven't found any beyond that. Failed speedy. Toddst1 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the band and the albums seem to have received reasonable coverage in heavy metal media, also going on a major tour. This source [1] seems reliable as used to be a magazine, has a dedicated staff, and a 20 year history, These sources are not on the unreliable list either [2] and [3]. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article stays it has to be rewritten by someone who knows how to write an article properly. The articles creator has also made pages for the bands members and I seriously doubt they deserve their own articles.*Treker (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is insubstabntial & from niche publications. Essentially, it's fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Scharfenberger[edit]

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

PROD contested by COI creator with no decent rationale. Non-notable politician, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN Joseph2302 (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom who sums up this case well. AusLondonder (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources I find are local "news" - like visits to boy scout troop. Not notable. LaMona (talk) 01:49, 28 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. Very little discussion, but the one "keep" opinion makes no argument based on guidelines or practice, i.e., about the level of coverage in reliable source the topic has received. Sandstein 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CelebrateHAMILTON[edit]

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

Despite an extensive search, all I could find about this event are press releases, brief mentions, or otherwise coverage from non-independent sources. There appears to be little third-party coverage about this which could establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C-SPAN, the Museum of American Finance and Trinity Church have either broadcasted, co-hosted or publicized CelebrateHAMILTON events. The United States Coast Guard has participated with both its colors and its auxiliary band. The Hamilton Grange National Memorial, Federal Hall and the George Washington Headquarters Museum have been venues for the CelebrateHAMILTON events more than once. The page is not only well made, it is very informative and precise. SergioVillavicencio (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This seems to be about an annual conference held by an appreciation society. The whole thing has a NN feel to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 26 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Visegrad Insight[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement ([as well as [Wikipedia:Notability (newspapers)]]). It was initially prodded by User:I dream of horses with insufficient rationale, and the prod was declined on technical grounds by User:James500. As I do share to concerns about notability of this tiny publication (reported circulation 6k, no history to speak of) I am bringing it here. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Publications-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 24 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: moved back to userspace, User:Liushiye/sandbox, by User:Philg88. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A brife look at sea salt[edit]

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

This student essay covers a topic that already exists on Wikipedia: sea salt. There is no need for a separate article. Some of the content might be incorporated into the existing article, but much of the content of this article involves poorly sourced dubious medical claims. Referencing health benefit claims to clickbait articles hosted on websites such as stylecraze.com, healingnaturallybybee.com, smallfootprintfamily.com, etc. are clear violations of WP:MEDRS. This article should never have been moved out of draft space. Edgeweyes (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests anything convincing to have as a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never will be accepted as an article. Subliterate (like ionized for iodized, not to mention brife). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete. Per nom. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have an article about sea salt. If the author wants to add information about different varieties of sea salt, that information should probably be included at sea salt per WP:PAGEDECIDE. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A10 duplication of topic. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moot I think this has all moved back into userspace. I fear I may have done something bogus on the final move, though. Not quite sure what. :-/ Pinkbeast (talk) 08:01, 24 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) 11:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de Bremen[edit]

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

This article does not have any references. No references can be found by a web search either. It could either be a hoax or at least it is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The author has been asked 5 days ago, to upload references, but uploaded some photographs of other events instead. There is also some confusion about km and miles. NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a likely hoax. It must be an event restricted to the Illuminati and the WP:CABAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. A Google search for "Tour de Bremen cycling" gives about fifty results for bicycle tours being held by tourism companies in Bremen, yet none for this supposed sports competition. Even if it somehow ends up being a real thing, notability is absolutely not established. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:44, 27 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. Valley2city^‽ 20:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Pursche[edit]

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

Coverage—both what's claimed and referenced in the article and what I dug up myself—falls short of establishing notability under WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as it's either connected with the subject or not substantial. Rebb ing 19:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Additionally, per discussions on the talk page, there appears to be a conflict of interest on the part of the author. Additionally, the author seems to be operating under a single-purpose account, and so I an strongly inclined to believe that the intent behind this article is promotional. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, in case my stance wasn't evident from my last comment. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia so yes my account only has this one solo article for the moment. So yes I am a single purpose account at the moment because we all have to start somewhere. I do not work for or directly with Mr. Pursche, I've never even met the man. I just wanted to added certain financial contributors to Wikipedia with an intent is to spread the word of the importance of financial planning and proper financial education. Mr. Pursche was the first and is one of many I was going to add as I wanted to highlighting the men whom contribute to it. I was also going to do so about certain game changing events in finances, like about Jason Derek Brown or Ross Mandell's company Sky Capital, sort of like the CNBC show American Greed(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Greed). I thought the more the information was readily available the better for everyone. In layman's terms, I was adding this articles for the same reason a fan of Ben Affleck adds an article about him, or a sports fan adds an article about his favorite player. I'm just a huge fan of finances and the good guys in it. I also think everyone should be more aware of the white collar crimes so they hopefully don't fall victim. But at this point I do not want to fight over it, if you feel I am out of line or not breaching a term of service, then I must be doing something incorrectly. So I await to see what you guys decide. If you choose to remove the article then I will just consider it a bad idea and deactivate my account. If you do not then perhaps I can either request someone to write these articles or find out the proper way because clearly, I have no idea what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirbyMack (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:KirbyMack - On discussion pages you need to sign your post at the end by putting four tilde's in a row. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box (which sometimes scrolls off the bottom of the page). As you have not much experience with Wikipedia, it is too bad that you started out trying to create a new article, because that is the hardest thing you can do here. There are lots of "rules" (called "policies") that govern the content of an article, which you probably haven't learned yet. Although the subject of this article might be a "good guy", Wikipedia requires reliable sources that support notability (as defined in Wikipedia, so you need to read those pages). I'm !voting Delete because the person does not meet general notability and I could not find sources that would support keeping the article. This decision relates to today, and the person could indeed become notable in the future, at which point an article would be possible. LaMona (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply no convincing signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 29 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) 11:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Miller (Musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO - after removing refs from his bandcamp page all sources are from whats-on listings. No assertion that any of his recordings have charted anywhere. Bazj (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches clearly found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Solely self-published, as per the article. We are getting this more and more, and self-published music is becoming somewhat mainstream. We do not currently have criteria that would allow us to assert notability for such sources, per WP:NMUSIC. LaMona (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks for the AFD note. I think he has enough coverage in reliable sources such as Orlando Weekly,Anchorage press,Concert Review,The Appalachian,Independent Clauses, Axis Magazine, and similar in a mixture of previews and reviews to enable a verifiable article to be well sourced and for WP:BASIC to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be more of a case of too soon as he appears to perform in wide enough locations that he is more than the Orlando-based phenom that the article states, but there is no evidence provided here that touring the world in and of itself has established notability. I agree with user LaMona that these kinds of independent artists in charge of their own press efforts are becoming more plentiful, making it harder to discern which are wikipedia worthy. I tip in favor of delete based on the fact that the references cited by user Atlantic306 to establish notability are, in fact, 1) trivial local “whose performing this week” type entertainment blogs under the auspices of otherwise notable entities, or 2) articles that are of the subject talking about himself and his ambitions rather than contain independent objective reportage of any achievement or notoriety. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:50, 28 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, defaulted to keep. There is no consensus in the discussion that the article needs to be deleted. There is consensus however that there is a strong POV which needs to be addressed (possibly even by merging the article).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Abortion[edit]

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

Multiple editors on the article's talk page agree that even if this is a topic worthy of discussion, the current version of the article is so thoroughly POV in its tone and in its synthesis and misrepresentation of sources that it would be better to WP:TNT it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it is very funny, how they don't come with arguments. I tried my best to write about Paper Abortion, a highly discussed topic in Denmark and Sweden. As you said, it is a relevant article. Feel free to edit instead of deleting the article. Till now, I have used reliable sources (according to the Wikipedia guidelines), I even had a peer-reviewed article to this topic. Till now, there wasn't any argumentation against the article: just a lot of bullying in the form of 'You can't clean propaganda. Nuke from orbit' or 'ridiculous screed'. No real argumentation. Maybe you can come up with some, pointing out what I should correct - or maybe you just correct it yourself? --Momo Monitor (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy the overview of when an article should be deleted on Wikipedia. If the article Paper Abortion do not attack any of this content, it shouldn't be deleted at all. If the article Paper Abortion do not attack the point listed, I will give it a

. Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion Y
Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteriaY
Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish Y
Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)Y
Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)Y
Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) Y
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failedY
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)Y
Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living personsY
Redundant or otherwise useless templatesY
Categories representing overcategorizationY
Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policyY
Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespaceY
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopediaY

As you can see, nothing of the article actually violates any of the deletion policy. Well, I agree that the article I wrote wasn't perfect and need some help. But why not just edit it and improve it that way? According to Wikipedia Guideline: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I think we should rather put the article on the on the edit page instead. While some sections might be deleted, rewritten or edited, most of it should be correct.

And I think some administrators should take care of some users. Or is 'Nuke from Orbit' and 'ridiculous sheet' a user-friendly tone? --Momo Monitor (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion: don't delete the article

, but send it to the edit-to-improve page. I don't know how to do it.--Momo Monitor (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The nomination is based on the premise that "multiple editors" agree that the article is currently hopelessly POV, and that it is pointless to try to fix this perceived POV problem.
When a topic is supported by verifiable reliable sources that establish it notability, deletion over contributors failing to reach a consensus on a POV version has always been a last resort.
When I checked the talk page for myself I found the discussion the nominator refers to is only hours old.
In that discussion nominator calls the current state of the article "a ridiculous screed". That is not what I found, at all. I found an article written in the idiosyncratic style of someone who was not a native speaker of English. I did not detect any attempt to use the wikipedia for a "screed".
I will remind nominator that WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Nominator's statements on the talk page, and here, give the appearance that his or her objection is to coverage of a genuine real phenomenon -- one they don't like.
I have asserted, over the years, that there is no topic that can't be covered from a neutral point of view, if there are references to support its notability, and good faith contributors willing to make the effort. Geo Swan (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, improve, make neutral in tone. Enough well sourced material on the topic for a stand-alone article. As a sociological phenomenon (one based on actual male behavior rather than on formally claimed rights) it has already been discussed by prominent scholars. Check to determine if this is the best title for such an article. See my article Talk page comments. Motsebboh (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

It is theoretically possible to make this article neutral. However, it would involve renaming the article and rewriting every sentence in it. Because the author asked for evidence that it was biased, I compiled four examples. (They were written in response to the author, to whom I refer in the second person.)

1. "Feminists are very divided on this. Some feminists want equal rights and promote this idea. Other feminists deny it." Are they actually very divided on it? Is it anything close to an even split? Or are there just a small number of feminists who are in favor of it? Similarly, do you see how your way of contrasting feminists who are for and against the idea is biased? Because it is absurdly biased, and I'm not sure how I can explain it to you if you do not already see it. Imagine a statement like, "some children have good taste and prefer vanilla ice cream. Other children prefer chocolate ice cream." I've implied that children with good taste prefer vanilla ice cream, and that those who prefer chocolate ice cream have bad taste. Also, your use of the word "deny" is a non-native usage.

2. "The denial of parenthood meats same contra arguments[11][12] as common abortion did[13]: use birth control or don't have sex at all.[14][15]" Not only does this sentence contain a typo, grammatical errors, and a basic structure that is non-intuitive to native speakers, it also presents the arguments against "paper abortion" in a dismissive, straw-man tone. Did you think that you had done a good job summarizing the arguments against your position?

3. "But there is a huge debate in many countries." How many countries? How huge of a debate? You mentioned two countries, and one of them (Sweden), was a proposal by five kids involved in a youth politics group that got media attention because of how it was such a bad idea. You say "huge debate in many countries," but to me it seems like "a small debate in a handful of countries. But debated a lot online by men's rights activists."

4. When you say that 7 out of 10 Danes want to support "paper abortion," you cite an article that cites a Gallup poll. The article that you cite also talks about another poll in which 42 percent of Danes would support "paper abortion." So here you have an article that presents two facts, and you have picked the fact that makes "paper abortion" seem better-supported. Why did you pick 7/10, instead of 42%? Did you think you weren't being biased?

The author of this article didn't do basic research behind this article -- for example, they didn't bring up the US court case on this issue, and they didn't link to it from its subsection in another Wikipedia article. They also cherry-picked from a Danish article in one citation and flat-out lied about the content of a Swedish article in another citation (and then denied having lied about it, confusingly). Trying to work with them to improve this article is going to be a huge and frustrating waste of time. You already needed somebody who can read three different languages to catch the shady stuff they're pulling.

The author wrote a bad article and posted it without prior experience with editing or creating articles (at least, not on this account). They made Wikipedia worse by writing this article. If they want it to be an article, they can write a version worth keeping. Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also it violates WP:FRINGE. Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Triacylglyceride:, with regard to your fringe assertion, did you read Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability versus acceptance? FRINGE is pretty clear -- it only applies to topics that have never been written about by verifiable authoritative sources. The idea that fathers should get a get out jail card, or rather a get out of responsibility for their progeny dispensation, has been discussed, in reliable, verifiable sources. That makes the topic notable. Even if all that discussion had mocked the idea, it would still make the topic notable -- same as the meme of the flat earth. This is an aspect of the core principle of verifiability, not truth.
As for your assertion that the article can't reasonably be brought into compliance with WP:NPOV... Your suggestion that we leap immediately to deletion is not appropriate. The deletion of articles due to irresolvable editorial disagreements is supposed to be reserved for a very last resort, when ordinary discussion on the talk page fails. Our nominator lapsed from compliance with WP:BATTLEFIELD with his or her immediate jump to nominate this article for deletion, without making a sincere good faith attempt to voice their concerns on the talk page first. Frankly, your comments on the talk page on March 14th also lapsed from compliance with BATTLEFIELD.
On the fifteenth you did offer specific concerns on the talk page -- specific concerns which you seemed to have repeated here. Okay, first, specific concerns like yours should have been expressed on the talk page, first. You and nominator, and critics of the article should only have called for its deletion if you could point to a civil, collegial, effort to reach a compromise, on the talk page, an effort that failed in spite of your best efforts. Nominator skipped that step.
On the talk page you wrote: "It would take a massive amount of work to rework this into a presentable article. Since none of us think that this should be an article in the first place, none of us wants to rewrite it."
News flash: Maintaining ANY article is hard work, even articles on topics where there is no controversy or disagreement. If we deleted every article that looked like it was going to be hard work, we wouldn't have a single article left. Let's be serious and drop the idea that this article should be deleted because working on improving it would be hard work.
With regard to "none of us" wants to work on it, please don't claim to speak for the entire community. Please don't claim to speak for me. I found this article interesting. At the point you were claiming no one else wanted to work on the article I had already spent half an hour working on the references. Geo Swan (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Topic is notable - there are a boatload of sources out there on "paper abortion" and this is definitely something being discussed. Where the topic is notable, but the article is not well written, the solution is to keep the article and improve it, not delete the article. Original deletion argument sounds to me like WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not appropriate grounds to delete. TheBlinkster (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt and merge to Paternity (law). This is Gamergate DS territory so strong, consensus-based admin action is important here. This topic fails WP:GNG by a very long way, especially with regard to independent sources discussing it. There is probably enough for a section in Paternity (law) but that's it, for now at least. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote is unchanged in light of the edits by Insertcleverphrasehere. This article remains an absurd act of rhetoric akin to "death tax" and the sources that have been introduced are poor.

This bit is pure, unadulterated WP:SYN and coatrack which I just removed from the article: "It would give men a redress in cases when they are tricked into parenthood,^[1] raped^[2]^[3]^[4] or when their semen is stolen.^[5]"

References

^ Anne Sophia Hermansen (2016-01-30). "Skal mænd have fri abort?" [Should men have the abortion?]. ASH (in Danish). Retrieved 2016-03-14.
^ "Statutory rape victim forced to pay child support". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
^ "He says he said no to sex, now says no to child support". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
^ "Juridisk abort er en god ting – også for kvinderne" [Legal abortion is a good thing - even for women]. Information (in Danish). Retrieved 2016-03-14.
^ "Woman Steals Ex-Boyfriend's Sperm, Has Twins, Sues For Child Support". Mommyish. Retrieved 2016-03-14.

So any of those sources even discuss "paper abortion"? This bit is the same. What the heck is the NHS source doing in the following except SYN? "Advocates argue that it would protect men who have no interest in fatherhood in cases when contraception fails.^[1]^[2]"

References

^ "What do international feminists think about equal reproductive rights for men and women? - Quora". www.quora.com. Retrieved 2016-03-13.
^ Choices, NHS. "How effective is contraception - Contraception guide - NHS Choices". www.nhs.uk. Retrieved 2016-03-14.

Other sourcing.... above we have Quora - SPS/forum, and not reliable. A press release from a men's rights organization? As before. Some [SPS] on a law school website? And then a bunch to http://politiken.dk/, which appears to be a Danish Politco or the like, just making flames to catch eyeballs. This article fails. delete and salt Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: By your own admission though, you just removed the material... how can material that has been removed count as justification for the deletion of an article? If you don't think a ref is appropriate... delete it, don't use it as justification that the whole article should be deleted. The article still needs considerable work, is not perfect, and needs considerable expansion based on other sources, but none of those are reasons to delete. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of articles from very good English language news sources such as Time, The New York Times, and the Atlantic Monthly on essentially the same topic which we have yet to use in our article. The notion that this concept hasn't been covered enough to merit an article of its own is simply mistaken. Motsebboh (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks to impressive-sounding sources are not actually sources. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find Time or Atlantic Monthly articles, but there is a [New York Times Op ed] that was reported on [here] and [here]. I also ran across a bunch of other english language sources on my way: [washington post], ~~[daily mail]~~, [the observer], [AUS women weekly], [NZHerald]. So the sources are definitely out there. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

right. an op-ed in the NYT that gets banged around the talking-head-o-sphere. None of that adds to NOTABILITY. It is really something how many garbage sources are, and how much bad editing is, being thrown at this topic, which is why I am saying delete and salt. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: except you decided to ignore the other sources I provided, and the good ones that are already in the article, which is why I'm saying don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on all the sources that have been brought, and I am not ignoring anything. But I will have to be honest, when I saw the daily mail in the list of sources you list above, i stopped. As I said above, it is really something how many garbage sources are being thrown at this topic. Your editing on this topic is terrible Insertcleverphrasehere, and the more things you do to try to save this, the more you show why this article should be deleted and salted. The daily mail for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok your attitude is getting to the point of insulting. If that source isn't appropriate, fine I've crossed it out. Once again it doesn't make the other sources any less notable. I'm getting rather sick of your use of this particular logical fallacy. I'm completely done talking to you, as you don't seem to have any good faith or a very constructive attitude but would rather go around insulting people's best efforts to help build an article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the person who worked over the article and left in the piles of SYN and bad sourcing that were there, and you are the one who proposed the daily mail for pete's sake, and all this blogosphere garbage. You did that, not me. Garbage editing is garbage editing. I gladly praise high quality editing and have changed my !vote when someone actually saves an article. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Time Magazine source: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motsebboh (talk • contribs) 02:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC) And here's the The Atlantic source: [5] Motsebboh (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing those sources which make it absolutely clear that a) this is Gamergate DS territory; b) this whole thing is a "legal stunt" by men's rights activists groups; c) that has gotten exactly zero traction in the real world in the ten years since the Time article was published. This is a completely fringe legal notion. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic article is three years old and the Scandinavian articles are quite recent. Also, as I mentioned earlier, social scientists have already discussed the the social phenomenon of biological fathers' de facto assumption of the such a "right". Sounds like I just don't like it on your part. Motsebboh (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motsebboh let me put it to this way. Can you name any jurisdictions where a father has a right to a "paper abortion"? Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to insert it here, Insert, but to answerJytdog's question: No, but I also don't know of any jurisdictions where Wages for housework prevail or where the the descendants of slaves in the United States are being paid for that fact. Motsebboh (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stating that as far as you know this has not been enacted. As to your comparisons with other articles, you are scraping the bottom with an WP:Other stuff exists argument that is invalid at AfD. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is in full effect. Why would you ask this question? You know damn well that whether a law is passed or not has nothing to do with deletion policy. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it goes to how real of a thing this is. The Time article makes it clear that this started a "legal stunt"; the question is whether it ever gained traction and actually became a legal right to disclaim paternity, anywhere in the world. Based on your reaction the answer is apparently "no", and this just remains a rhetorical device. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why did you try to crowbar discretionary sanctions onto the article under the guise of "Gamergate"[6]?~~ These two things are completely unrelated except for a tangental connection to mens rights/feminism. I'd like to understand your reasoning here, as it seems like a choice made to scare people off of improving the article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided you formal notice of the DS that arose from the Gamergate case. Please read the links there. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that the Gamergate decision was so far broadened to include 'any gender related dispute or controversy'. I guess that means that the Feminism article and the Men's rights movement article should also be listed with the Gamergate discretionary sanctions (they currently are not tagged as such but perhaps they should be). Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See WP:TNT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanlu121 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article needs significant work, but is clearly notable. I'll put my hand up to do a bunch of copy editing to bring the article in line with WP:NPOV. EDIT: i have done considerable work in bringing the article up to scratch. While many of the sources are Danish, and the article needs some more english language sources, it is unsurprising that many of the sources on the subject are Scandinavian, as the movement seems to have originated there. The article has been the subject of dozens of edits in the last week by multiple contributors, to the point that it is hardly recognisable from the article that was nominated for deletion [[7]]. As a result, many of the early 'delete' arguments are now irrelevant. This is now a case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:BATHWATER. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder how much of the problem is the title. I had never heard it before tonight, though I've always known about irresponsibility of male parents, otherwise known as desertion. The analogy with abortion is a false one, and I can see several different possible political motivations for using it. An abortion terminates the pregnancy; (the relevant connection to abortion would be whether the male parent as well as the female has to give permission for an abortion) Many other things can terminate the responsibility for a child. The female parent can and sometimes does desert the child also, though I have the impression it's much less common than the male. (somehow it seems wrong to use the terms father and mother in this context). What is needed here is more than copyediting, though I am undecided between rewrite, and delete and rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I wonder if there's a better location for this article. Since it seems to have originated from either Denmark or Sweden, perhaps the Danish or Swedish term would be a better title? I don't believe this concept has made it into the legal scholarship of the Anglosphere. Of course, even in those languages it seems like the term has been intentionally chosen to be controversial. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, on english wikipedia the articles should have an english name, unless a foreign word or phrase is commonly used in english sources. As english sources tend to use the terms "Paper abortion" or "legal abortion", there doesn't seem to be a case for using a Danish or Swedish title. "Legal abortion" is far too vague and easily confused with other abortion issues to be useful, and the term "statutory abortion" doesn't seem to be used much in english sources as far as I've seen. Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm happy that I could merge the content into the existing Parental responsibility /Child support etc etc articles without any destruction of Wikipedia's encyclopedic worth. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this is generally framed purely as a men's rights or egalitarian issue in the available sources, I really don't feel like it fits in those articles at all. If you want to support a merge, the Men's rights article is a far better choice. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept a merge to that article too. it probably is better there. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of where the content goes as a merge, the POV issue still must be addressed. This article treats the topic as a serious proposal, while Time magazine refers to it as a "legal stunt". It is purposely provocative, yet that aspect of it does not appear anywhere in the article. The WP article could be a statement by a supporter, including the section on "Opposition". Nothing in the section on opposition refers to the accusations of mysogyny or, as Time calls it, a legal stunt. Unless these aspects are included, NPOV is not achieved. Very little of what is in the cited articles actually makes it into the WP article. The references are treated as citation "ballast" to support the article, not as sources of information. For example, the Time article says: "But solving one problem may just be creating another: pregnancy counselors find that another great source of pressure on ambivalent women is often the father of the child. As states crack down on "deadbeat dads," men have a greater financial incentive to pressure women into ending unwanted pregnancies." That's not in the WP article. The Atlantic article says: "Narratives like these—and they abound in the men's movement—lack historical context and philosophical nuance and seem chillingly misogynistic." So there's a criticism that isn't in the WP article. Personally, I would see it merged it into Men's rights movement because that provides the proper context for the message, which definitely arises from that philosophy. LaMona (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A merge into MRM certainly makes some sense. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that there is source enough material on the topic for a stand-alone article as well as a mention in other articles. Since the article was only created days ago, from brief and recent Danish and Swedish language sources, of course it lacks substantial context. The English language sources mentioned in this discussion hadn't even been added to it the last time I looked. Also, as I've mentioned before, the most important aspect of this general phenomenon (which this article and its title could perhaps be modified to fit) is that over the last several decades men have increasingly behaved as if they already had this "right". See George Akerlof: Reproductive technology shock. Motsebboh (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should be more clear; merging makes more sense than deletion. However, I agree that this topic has more than enough sources to support a standalone article, and this is my preferred option by far. Insert CleverPhrase Here 14:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite its clear that there shall be many arguments to improve the article. Merging makes sense yes, but at this moment keeping the article is more important. Capitals00 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete - Merge selectively to Paternity (law) (and possibly to Parental responsibility or Men's rights movement) and delete more or less per Jytdog. There is a notable subject about the rights and responsibilities of fathers. We already have an article on that in paternity (law), which could certainly use expansion. Then there's a neologism "Paper Abortion" which very few of the acceptable sources even mention, which is about paternity with a provocative MRM rhetorical spin. In other words, per WP:NEO and WP:NOPAGE we don't need pages about neologisms when there's already an article about the bigger, far better sourced subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've read at least three articles discussing this topic in mainstream media in the past, so in my judgement there's no legit case for deletion. (If I've got extra time, maybe I'll hunt for them and add them later.) I don't recall any of them specifically using the term 'paper abortion' though. So, if someone wants to propose renaming to something better, I wouldn't be against that. I do oppose merging. The arguments for doing so seem to be either that the article's quality is subpar or that the topic can be subsumed within the scope of a larger (less controversial) article. However, since almost all articles start out as something that needs improvement and that could be merged into a larger article, I think those arguments are disingenuous and really just cover for getting rid of an article on a controversial topic. Seriously, what do you suppose the ratio is of new articles that get created when a section got too big within a parent article versus new articles that start out needing major overhaul and/or those just starting out as stubs?OckRaz ^talk 10:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Personally, I find the idea of granting men a right to a 'paper abortion' to be completely repellent, but offensive topics are supposed to have WP articles.OckRaz ^talk 10:43, 3 April 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. Valley2city^‽ 20:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Køhler[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of this IP - "I have AfD's this article, for the reason that Køhler is not notable per WP:N or WP:NFOOTY." Giant Snowman 18:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Giant Snowman 18:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as shown by this which is already cited in the article. Giant Snowman 18:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: The Soccerway reference is apparently in error. You may wish to recheck the links from FC Nordsjælland's website and the Danish Sports News given in my delete comment below. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case the obvious solution is to userfy - what do you think @Struway2 and CactusWriter:? Giant Snowman 08:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No objection to moving the page into your user space. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to userfying from me either. Thinking about it, it's usually my preferred option for players who almost meet WP:NFOOTY (i.e. footballers who are signed to, but haven't played for, a fully professional club), as is the case here. 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK by me. No prejudice against any other editor re-creating him independently if they get there first once he does make his professional debut. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Passes WP:NFOOTY as they've played in a fully professional league. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the anon's point was that, whatever Soccerway might claim, Mr Køhler actually hasn't appeared in the Danish Superliga. Normally, when you click on the figures in a player's Soccerway profile, you get though to the match(es) counted. At Mr Køhler's profile, if you click on the 5 in the unused subs column, you get the same 5 matches as listed beneath the table. But if you click on the 1 in the matches played column, or in the used subs column, or the 32 minutes played, you get "No data available". What that means is, they've made a mistake. Mr Køhler's profile at his club website lists him with no appearances, as does his profile at the Danish Superliga website. No prejudice against re-creation when he really does make his debut. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON as he has not yet made an appearance. Currently fails WP:NFOOTY as demonstrated by Struway2's link to his own club's official stats page. Also, this up-to-date statistics page from Danish Television Sports News which is current to the club's latest match on March 20 2016. And a review of each of the 22 matches played since he joined FCN [8] shows he has not yet made an appearance. The Soccerway reference is clearly incorrect. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy Changing my vote, no reliable sources actually say he's played, so he fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:03, 29 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) 11:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise International Education[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, reads like an advert with dubious sources JMHamo (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed WP:COATRACK information from the article as the references only talk about the founders but never about the actual subject "Sunrise International Education". I am also unable to find third party sources to verify the information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Somewhat newly founded company with no signs at all of even minimal notability, nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 25 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 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Madden[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:CREATIVE JMHamo (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all of this is questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did anyone bother to at least Google it? He and his films received plenty of coverage, and his death led to several obits in major sources. Coverage found from just a cursory search includes [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the many RS sources, such as those identified above. The Reuters source and the Variety source are very good as well as the numerous book sources, passes WP:BASIC. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --do ncr am 03:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Nom is spitefully responding to having one of their speedy noms declined with retaliatory, unresearched deletion proposals. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reasonably notable b-movie director. However, the article's final sentence about his influence is unsourced. I'll leave it up for now to allow someone time to provide the reference. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:25, 28 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 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Holden[edit]

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

Very little information in this article Qpalzmmzlapq | talk | contribs 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improve it rather than deleting it. Also, passes WP:NFOOTY as he played in Football League First Division which was a fully professional league. Another source about him [17]. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving, not deleting. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Giant Snowman 21:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played at the highest level of English football, so passes notability guideline. As noted, though, the article as originally created is pathetic and really needs expanding -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Article size is not a valid reason for deletion. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - invalid rationale for deletion. C 679 09:53, 30 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. A clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams Beyond Grades[edit]

Other relevant AfD running concurrently: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sujit Meher

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

Dreams Beyond Grades was created recently by User:Novelbuzz, an SPA who has also edited the many times deleted and recreated Sujit_Meher, which I am concurrently listing. I don't know how best to AfD two connected articles which are both disrupted/recreated etc by the same crowd of disruptive socks, so I'll just put the relevant information in both places, and cross-link. (Look out for new socks in this discussion.) Sujit Meher, a young fashion designer, is the author of the purported "bestseller"[18] Dreams Beyond Grades. The article Sujit_Meher has been repeatedly speedied and recreated, see the deletion log here: [19]. Yunshui eventually restored Sujit Meher, obviously with some misgivings,[20] on request from a new user, Celebtech. Yunshui's AGF seems frankly of the suicidal kind; consider also the dialogue here. Anyway, Yunshui has left the project, but he was a checkuser and has blocked most of the socks involved in this saga of (to my mind obvious) self-promotion: Fashiondiva2015 (talk · contribs) and Quickjazz (talk · contribs). A new sock showed up when I prodded Dreams Beyond Grades yesterday, User:Fashiongrade2016, who removed the prod, restored copyright material to Dreams Beyond Grades, and restored unsourced puffery to Sujit_Meher. Blocked as a sock by Floquenbeam. The story emerging is of SPAs (or to put it more bluntly, socks) determined to promote the person Sujit Meher at all costs, in Sujit Meher and in Dreams Beyond Grades, repeatedly removing speedy templates and prods, requesting undeletion and recreating Sujit Meher with new accounts. I think we should delete and salt all this unscrupolous self-promotion. Oh, the article? Yes. It was quite long before, with a peacock plot summary of the life of the subject (Sujit Meher), most of which is at the moment gone because it's copyvio, but it tends to be restored by fresh socks, see history. To summarize: it fails WP:NBOOK and the sources are all promotional. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't really find much on google. The two sources cited by the article, in addition to sounding somewhat promotional, are primarily about the author, not the book, so they don't get anywhere near satisfying the criteria at WP:NBOOK. Uanfala (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this advertorial. Comprehensively fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Only two publicity pieces for references, the first of which is a "shared content" website, and I can't find anything better. No reviews. No evidence of being a best-seller. The publisher is essentially a self-publishing service. Voceditenore (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely does not pass notability at this point - if it ever does become notable, the article can certainly be made more than a stub. Collect (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertorial. Would hate to have seen it prior to trimming. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NBOOK per nom. --regentspark (comment) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertorial, fails NBOOK and I strongly suspect the publisher is a vanity press. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Omji Publishing House is a self-publishing outfit. They charge authors for their "publishing services" [21]. See also [22]. Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At the moment, this recently published book fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). If in the future, it becomes a best-seller, a new article can be created. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:35, 27 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. Consensus in this community discussion is that this is an exercise in self-promotion, which we empathically do not want, by a non-notable person. Accounts who continue with such editing may find themselves summarily blocked. Sandstein 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sujit Meher[edit]

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

Other relevant AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreams Beyond Grades

Sujit_Meher, a young fashion designer, is the author of the purported "bestseller" Dreams Beyond Grades, which I am concurrently listing. I don't know how best to AfD two connected articles which are both disrupted/recreated, etc, by the same crowd of disruptive socks, so I'll just put the relevant information in both places, and cross-link. (Look out for new socks in this discussion.) The article has been repeatedly speedied and recreated. See the deletion log here: [23]. Yunshui eventually restored Sujit Meher, obviously with some misgivings,[24] on request from a new user, Celebtech. Yunshui's AGF seems frankly of the suicidal kind; consider also the dialogue here. Anyway, Yunshui has left the project, but he was a checkuser and has blocked most of the socks involved in this saga of (to my mind obvious) self-promotion: Fashiondiva2015 (talk · contribs) and Quickjazz (talk · contribs). A new sock showed up when I prodded Dreams Beyond Grades yesterday, user:Fashiongrade2016, who removed the prod, restored copyright material to Dreams Beyond Grades, and restored unsourced puffery to Sujit_Meher. Blocked as a sock by Floquenbeam. The story emerging is of SPAs (or to put it more bluntly, socks) determined to promote the person Sujit Meher at all costs, in Sujit Meher and in Dreams Beyond Grades, repeatedly removing speedy templates and prods, requesting undeletion and recreating Sujit Meher with new accounts. I think we should delete and salt all this unscrupolous self-promotion. Oh, the article? Well, it fails WP:NBIO and the sources are all promotional. Bishonen | talk 16:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 16:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (See below) ~~Keep~~, as much as it pains me to say this, because the COI editing and other shenanigans have been deeply obnoxious and very disruptive. I'd say he passes WP:GNG. Leaving out the interview, the book plug, and ones with passing mentions, there are multiple articles about him and his designs in The Telegraph (Calcutta) [25], [26], [27], [28] and at least one in The Times of India [29]. They are all with bylines by reporters who regularly write on "lifestyle" topics for these papers (Pratyush Patra and Minati Singha). They span two years, and each one has different content. Yes, they're puff-piece-y in style, but that's how fashionistas write. The book is utterly non-notable. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my "keep" to "delete". I'm going to defer to DGG's judgement and persuasive arguments here, and I must say it wasn't a difficult decision. Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. There's just now been some more disruption of both articles by a new sock, User:Mokaverma2016, removing AfD templates, restoring copyvio, threatening others with blocks (!) etc. It's a pity obnoxiousness is not a deletion reason, but of course it's not. I understand what you're saying about the normal way fashionistas write, Voceditenore. I have trouble taking the sources seriously, but then it's not important that I sympathize with them, or indeed that I sympathize with the article subject. If you say he's notable, I believe you. But if the article is kept, it'll need to be pretty much permanently watched against further peacockery and copyvio, sigh. Bishonen | talk 11:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmmm. Yes, User:Mokaverma2016's approach to deletion templates and restoring copyrvio is remarkably similar to User:Novelbuzz's. I certainly won't weep if this article gets deleted. I've got it on my watchlist and if it's kept, I'll keep it there. UGH! Voceditenore (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we sure that the journalists aren't basically recycling press releases issued via, say, the National Institute of Fashion Technology? That institution and its faculty/alumni have been an absolute pain across various articles, notably Govind Kumar Singh. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought but after running various distinctive phrases etc. through Google, I have not been able to find any press releases similar to these articles. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen, simply that the source press releases aren't on line. It may also be common practice in India and Sri Lanka to feed stories to reporters. You'd be surprised at the amount of press Dinesh Subasinghe gets from the main papers in Sri Lanka, who all seem to uncritically take his word for his various accomplishments and write them up in lengthy, flowery articles. But it's very hard to prove that's what's going on. Voceditenore (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think commonality of suspicion among experienced 'Pedians should count for something. Please note that Google doesn't index a lot of India-centric stuff very well, which is one reason why someone at the India Project created a special search facility for English-language Indian news sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked using the India Project's search engine and it produced the same results as Google, i.e. the five articles I've linked above and zero press releases. I also did individual searches directly on the most common press release sites in India (india-press-release.com, www.prnewswire.co.in, news-pr.in) and found nothing. I have found quite a few NIFT press releases, but none of them mention Meher. The article is currently neutrally written. The sources are of the type that for any other subject at AfD would almost certainly be considered independent, reliable, and sufficient. I think we'd be on a very slippery slope here to (a) delete an article simply because it has attracted obnoxious COI editors (b) allow "suspicion by experienced Wikipedians" to override these sources, especially when that suspicion is potentially coloured by the obnoxiousness of the article's editors and not supported by any objective evidence. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, indeed. If you've delved that deeply then I agree entirely with you. I can't concentrate well enough to dig deep at the moment, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Voceditenore. He is mentioned in fashion-related articles in several reliable sources and the Wikipedia article is acceptably neutral. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to Draft instead if needed as this may seem minimally acceptable, I believe we can wait for better and, although the current amount of sources would seem acceptable, I'm still concerned about solidity. Asking DGG for any helpful analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are promotional or mere mentions; the purpose is promotional. " mentioned in fashion-related articles" is not notability. If anything , such mentions and such promotional sources are good evidence there is nothing better available. I fully share Voceditenore's doubts about Indian news sources in the arts and applied arts and probably business also. --I no longer regard coverage by them as proof of anything but that the persona has a press agent. As evidence for my doubt, see the actual content of some of the stories: [30] is as pure a press release as has ever been written. phttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/Odia-designer-to-showcase-folk-fashion-at-Bangalore-show/articleshow/22445443.cms?referral=PM] is a somewhat longer equivalent, all in his own words with no indication of any editorial responsibility. [31] lists his name among several dozen people whom it does not consider among the famous designers of the title. Just his name--not a single word about him. But perhaps there is a little bit of editorial honesty--they all refer to him isn such terms as "budding designer" "young designer" or the equivalent--those are polite phrases that indicate what we would call not yet notable. Voceditenore. please look at the actual sources again.

Looked at with some editorial judgement of our own and knowledge of WP, this is not good faith editing. It's obvious work by a press agent, in apparent violation of our terms of use. According to the TOU, we all are responsible for enforcing them, and the way to do this is to delete the article and block the editors.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. That these are part of a promotional campaign is shown by the simultaneous attempt at an article about his book, a book not even in WorldCat. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The creator of the article on Meher's book, User:Novelbuzz, has been attempting today to canvass more people to this discussion (yet again!) and asking them to remove the AfD template: [32], [33], [34], [35]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still more canvassing: [36], [37], [38]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dear Admins, He is mentioned in all fashion-related articles by all eminent fashion journalist in several reliable sources and the Wikipedia article is acceptably neutral. I wrote about his book, and about book concern he might not be an author but he himself listed in those top 10 alumni of NIFT,^[1] and that published in NIFT website itself. And i guess its enough to be a notable person. Please kindly look at it Voceditenore DGG. If you go through his Facebook fan page. He has also verified as public figure by facebook itself with more than lakhs nos of followers. Which again shows the symptom of a notable person. And now a days Facebook is also a reliable source to verify a person to know whether he is a known person or not. His fb page: ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novelbuzz (talk • contribs) 09:03, 29 March 2016

Anyone can fake Facebook stuff and puff it up. The NIFT is known to be highly self-promotional. You are already getting a reputation for doing similar stuff here via your canvassing etc. All of this has been seen before at other NIFT-related articles. It needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush Here NIFT published something that he was in the judge panel of IIT Kanpur Fashion Event. How can someone be a judge of such prestigious college like IIT without any notable mark? I guess IIT is not promoting him And there it clearly mentioned a renowned fashion designer by NIFT itself. Please go through the link. ^[3] ^[4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Novelbuzz (talk • contribs) 09:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note And we can't say all media houses like The Times Of India, The Telegraph and other medias, NIFT, IIT and all are promoting him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Novelbuzz (talk • contribs) 09:32, 29 March 2016

References

^ http://www.nift.ac.in/alumni_2015.html
^ https://www.facebook.com/sujit.mhr/
^ http://www.nift.ac.in/delhi/downloads/ANTARAGNI_2014_IIT_KANPUR.pdf
^ http://www.abraxasnu.com/hotwheels/8-things-keep-mind-buying-new-car/

You may not be aware that IITs have also got into problems on Wikipedia due to their promotional activities. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Finally got my brain into gear and have had a look at the sources and for other sources. My original gut feeling - advertorial/promotion/no real notability stands. Please note that The Times of India is nowadays in many respects little more than a vehicle for puff pieces and has lost much of the kudos that once it had: standards have dropped enormously, even on such basic things as quality of prose, let alone of subject matter. Truly notable designers get mentions outside their own country: fashion is an international "movement", not a parochial one. DGG has it right, as far as I can see. - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wasn't going to get involved, but then I was one of the lucky several to get solicited by Novelbuzz and so I thought I may as well take a look. Sorry, but I have to agree with everyone else who is saying delete. When this person becomes properly notable, then he can have an article, but right now, at my most super-charitable best, it is too borderline to call either way, and because I'm not feeling super-charitable about being canvassed, I'm going delete. Mabalu (talk) 09:57, 29 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) 11:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey in Egypt[edit]

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

There is nothing to suggest that ice hockey is an established sport in Egypt, with no significant coverage to establish notability. Most of the sources here are Facebook posts by an amateur ice hockey club. The International Ice Hockey Federation does not recognise any ice hockey organising body in the country. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Larry. It's fine and dandy that this amateur outfit is trying to bootstrap hockey in Egypt; good luck to them. But this rather reminds me of the Scouting in Vatican City article, a notorious attempt to paper over "There isn't any" for purposes unknown. Article created by now-indeffed editor, and furthered by the SPA from the Anubis club, who may feel promotional Wikipedia articles to be easier to maintain than its now-vanished website. Fails the GNG, any measure of notability standard, as well as WP:NOTWEBHOST. Ravenswing 17:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One amateur team is not enough for an article about ice hockey in Egypt. If they ever do make it maybe we could get an inspirational sports movie about them. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The majority of the citations are from Facebook which at last check is not a reliable or credible source. If Egypt ever gets to the point that they create a national team and start competing in international tournaments then this subject should be revisited. Until then, this article has no purpose. Deadman137 (talk) 17:15, 25 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 02:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KASOTC[edit]

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

Notability unclear. Laber□^T 15:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:MILUNIT It's part of Joint Special Operations Command (Jordan). Apparently, the U. S. Army thinks it's notable as a training base: 1, 2 — Maile (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per good sourcing, notable training base.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its a unique facility in the world of special ops training, they have good referencing and links. worth reviewing e.g. ^[1] --Zweina (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did the most recent edit that included updating the names of the new management and adding the warrior competition section. i also added a lot of references and external links that were not previously there that support all the information that was previously stated on the page. the links include independent second party sources that include reputable news sources, and referencing the description and facilities where relevant from the website. --SM KASOTC (talk) 12:20, 30 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) 11:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Weiss (test pilot)[edit]

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

Google search does not offer any evidence of notability. Dyson's book is a reliable secondary source with moderate coverage of the subject, but it is apparently the only one, and none of the secondary criteria of WP:PERSON seem to be met. —swpb^T 13:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Clarityfiend Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 24 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. Very little discussion, but the one "keep" opinion makes no argument based in guidelines or practice, i.e., about the level of coverage in reliable source the topic has received. Sandstein 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedspot[edit]

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

Non-notable website which fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are ~3 secondary sources used in the article, but one of them is a press release written by someone connected to the company. The others are quick reviews of the website, mostly because Google Reader closed. There has been no other coverage since. Elaenia (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, a non-notable web site. WP:WEB applies. References are to PR sources. Recently discussed at WP:COIN. John Nagle (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete at least not immediately. Feedspot may not be notable as a feedreader, but it's getting attention for its aggressive self-promotional use of subscribers' email contacts: when I started typing "feedsp.." in Google, the suggestion "feedspot spam" immediately popped up. Calmansi (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While Feedspot may not be particularly notorious, and seems to get lots of bad grades for their specific marketing practices, it does get used and talked about. There are probably a lot of pages on Wikipedia that are less useful. It could use a little info on number of users, frequency of update, and pros and cons of its particular methodology. If its actual entry is removed, it should probably (at least) point to a general page on comparing newsreaders for people who are trying to find out information about it as I did when I came to Wikipedia today. Kentpollard (talk) 16:44, 30 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) 11:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Palace Arena[edit]

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

This article is about a small arena in Michigan. It does not cite any sources, include any historical background, or seem to have any significance. The information here is likely based on the arena's own website, which is included in the external links. Amccann421 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any evidence of notability; the only coverage I could find were several mentions that a minor league hockey team played a scrimmage here, which hardly qualifies as notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a small town community rink. This may be the most insignificant subject I've voted on at AfD in months. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Ravenswing 20:46, 23 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) 11:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Leasing[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the guideline for companies. A Google search turned up a handful of articles, but all were either passing mentions, or from the Winnipeg Free Press. No indication that this company has gotten any in-depth coverage outside of Winnipeg. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies the companies notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet wp:corp, mainly because a local company with only local impact. LaMona (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same with the other comments Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 18:54, 30 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) 11:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Aus[edit]

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

Questionable notability-I had this as a blp prod but looking around can't find much about anything. Wgolf (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I did find a link that this might be a copyright issue from. Wgolf (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better and this article is clearly not solid for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -WP:MUSICBIO Nothing comes up from the links above. Earwig comes up with Copyvio from SoundCloud, which according to SoundCloud wiki page, is user generated. — Maile (talk) 16:44, 23 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never Stop Singing[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary with no justification of importance ViperSnake151 Talk 01:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: Well, I just gave the thing a face-lift, and in some quick digging I discovered it was spoken of in detail in the Pioneer Press and won a Upper Midwest Regional Emmy Award in 2010. My thoughts here is that since we now have a "justification of importance", we need to look deeper. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:24, 25 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. czar 20:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisle Wilkerson[edit]

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

Not notable. The article does not have sufficient sources to support its notability. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing solidly convincing for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 23 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 flyer 10:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commutative non-associative magmas[edit]

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

Unsourced original research. Previously prodded and deprodded by Ehird in April 2012. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar finds about 20 hits for "commutative magma" (a better title; it should be singular not plural, and the non-associative part is redundant else it would be a semigroup), mostly by groups of researchers independent of each other. That's weak but I think it's enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with David, this should be called a commutative magma. I think the term commutative non-associative magma probably came from the related notion of commutative non-associative binary operator. Here is a section in Bourbaki that defines a commutative magma and discusses associated properties like centralizers. Bourbaki, along with the Gscholar references David mentions, is enough notability for me. The nom has a point, though. I was unable to find an RS discussing rock paper scissors as a commutative magma. It appears in the folk literature, like stack exchange, but I cannot find an RS. Without an RS, the RPS material may need to be cut. --Mark viking (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to commutative magma as suggested above. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:42, 29 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. Mention may be made in another article independently. Sandstein 09:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper the westie[edit]

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

May not meet notability. Greek Legend (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only independent coverage I can find is this 8-sentence story from June 2015. The WP:GNG bar must be higher than this. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:GNG. As always, prominence on social media is not notability, and, judging from the lack of sources, this subject is not notable enough for an article. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Virgin Frequent Flyer. Dan arndt (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the reason for the redirect Dan arndt? Neither article mentions the other and to me they seem unrelated. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athomeinkobe: - sorry my bad I meant that a mention could be redirected to Virgin frequent flyer. Dan arndt (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense. Although in that case one or two sentences about the dog would have to be merged into that section of the airline's article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking would be the best outcome. Dan arndt (talk) 03:51, 29 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. joe decker ^talk 15:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subomi Plumptre[edit]

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

Sadly no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Sources provided and the one I found through WP:BEFORE are unreliable. The reliable ones I found are passing mention. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:05, 16 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£} 07:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:06, 16 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£} 07:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems very much like a WP:VANITY bio with sources such as facebook, blogs, etc. I am not seeing any independent, reliable coverage, the few minor newspaper mentions are articles written by her, not about her. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know how appropriate it is for me to comment, since I wrote the article, but the person, according to articles, has been a leading writer and creative in Lagos, Nigeria for years and has been given recognition as one of the 100 most inspiring women in Nigeria. Perhaps that isn't highlighted enough in the article(?). TheNetNG, the Lifestyle and News online newspaper of record in Lagos, described her as one of the highly established names in digital media, in Nigeria. She has also worked on some of the biggest online campaigns in Africa. Perhaps it wasn't made clear enough in the article. For that, according to the articles, she has been recognized by the Lagos state government, the Nigeria Leadership Initiative, (NLI); Advertisement Practitioners Council of Nigeria, local newspapers and a TV station. I put some of those things in the article, but they're spread out. I will work on the article to improve it and include more references to show notability, per Wiki quality and notability standards. Thanks very much

Spiritual 11:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victhur69 (talk • contribs)

Don't Delete Article may need improvement. The subject's notability is not in doubt. She has shared the same stage with some of Nigeria's Digital Media best brains. People like Tolu Ogunlesi, Chude Jideonwo, etc. The 100 Nigeria's Most Inspiring Women thing is, in my opinion, worthy proof that she deserves the space. Being on the same list with people like Chimamanda Adichie, Arunma Oteh, Tara Fela-Durotoye,Genevieve Nnaji, etc, is no mean feat.

Maihe101 (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no convincing signs at all for any better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't DeleteArticle requires improvement, as does so many other articles on wikipedia. 41.206.7.189 (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spent quite some time searching for sources, hoping that she would be notable as an author. I could not find any reliable coverage. Her only claim for fame is participation in New Media Conference on 27 May 2015 (which is reliably sourced). This is great, but as far as I am concerned not sufficient for notability at this point. No prejudice against recreation provided reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 1 April 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 Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boondee (character)[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cleverman or delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Results seem limited to IMDb pages and Wikipedia mirrors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)
Redirect to Cleverman. Dan arndt (talk) 14:17, 28 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 Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djukara[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cleverman or delete. There's nothing but IMDb pages and Wikipedia mirrors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cleverman. Dan arndt (talk) 14:13, 28 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 Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latani[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cleverman or delete. Nothing but IMDb pages and Wikipedia mirrors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cleverman. Dan arndt (talk) 14:14, 28 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 Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy West[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Character from a TV series that has yet to air and limited in coverage. WP:CRYSTAL at best. Applies to all the characters from Cleverman. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cleverman or delete. No coverage in reliable sources and pretty much nothing on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cleverman. Dan arndt (talk) 14:18, 28 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 Cleverman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waruu West[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koen West (these afd's should be merged together btw) Wgolf (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cleverman or delete. Has a few trivial mentions, such as this article, but there isn't substantial coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cleverman. Dan arndt (talk) 14:15, 28 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) 10:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Joyal[edit]

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

Very promotional, so much so I don't know it can be saved. Usterday (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG; only references are in trade journals, and very specific to his line in dentistry. His main book held in only 5 libraries indicates that it didn't have wide-spread impact. LaMona (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no signs of convincingly better notability. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technomyopia[edit]

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

Someone deprodded, so here I am. Term is not notable. It was coined by non-notable author in a non-notable book. The only citations on the article are the book itself; there are no secondary/reliable sources. Searching google for more references only turned up tiny blogs and an Urban Dictionary entry -- not enough to establish notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the fair amount of popularity this term might get from urban dictionary, it may be a notable word someday, but as of now it's way WP:TOOSOON to start an article about this. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. A Google Scholar search on term returns 44 hits on the scholarly literature. I'm a prof who assigns this reading in a course and my students created the stub. If you can wait until June 2016, I'll ask other students to add more sources and show how term is used in different ways by scholars.Communic8te (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Communic8te: This discussion will likely be closed within a week or two. You're welcome to make a userspace draft version of the article that your students can add to in June 2016 (assuming the current version of the article gets deleted). -IagoQnsi (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your argument is not valid per Wikipedia's policy of WP:GOOGLEHITS. The mere popularity of a term on the internet does not imply the underlying subject is notable. Tigraan (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NEO/WP:GNG. There may be a good case for the notability of the book, which could mention this term, but as there are no secondary sources whatsoever here there's nothing to merge. No objections to a redirect should someone create an article about the book, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Richey[edit]

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

No coverage about him whatsoever. Fails all relevant guidelines. Article is a PR piece. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I may've PRODed at first since there's basically nothing to suggest better improvements and none of this solidly satisfies any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Contrary to the nomination, coverage about the subject is easily found simply by selecting the Google News link atop this discussion page. The depth of coverage the subject has received is not enough to meet WP:BASIC at this time (e.g. [39], [40], [41]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I believe you might be confusing those results for other Lee Richeys. Of the 20 or so articles mentioning any Lee Richey at all, the only 3 articles that I found are [42], [43] and [44], all briefly mentioning his minor involvement in a local Christmas event - that community has a population of 8 thousand residents, by the way. The only other mention is a press release. Before doubting my nomination rationale please consider actually doing the pertinent research. Thanks! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Zolzer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE. I see nothing notable about this person. Sources only mention him being fired, a non-notable event. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for any applicable notability, not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Fails WP:GNG with lack multiple sources of significant coverage by independent sources. Most of source I can find have been routine, simple coverage with brief mention of hirings and firings.—Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Brooklyn Nets, which presently has content about other announcers, but not Zolzer. This will serve to improve the merge target article and WP:PRESERVE appropriate content on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 30 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 09:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elgin Children's Chorus[edit]

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

Fails NMUSIC and ORG John from Idegon (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete given that this search did find mentions about this group in several articles from the Chicago Tribune, but they were only mentioning them in relation to school concerts or something like that. I see this article as nothing more than an advertisement. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both this and my searches have nothing solid enough for convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep finding many local and regional sources over an extended period of time to indicate that the organization has lasting coverage. For example, Elgin Children's Chorus presents final show of season (Chicago Tribune), Elgin Children's Chorus to hold auditions, 'Devine' singing with Elgin Children's Chorus (Chicago Daily Herald), and From the quaint to the spectacular, McHenry County's holiday happenings (Northwest Herald) are some examples. I'm finding a good amount of coverage made up of feature articles in the Chicago Tribune, and although Elgin is a distant suburb of Chicago, it's clear that this is far and above any routine coverage. Passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The source above you have labeled as the Chicago Tribune is actually from the Courier-Tribune, a west suburban paper bought out by the Trib several years ago....unambiguously a local paper. The Daily Herald is a joint banner shared by several separate local editions distributed in the Chicago suburbs, also not a regional paper. In any case, one of those citations is just a short blurb and the other is primarily about an artist making a guest appearance with the choir. The bit in the NW Herald is nothing more than an announcement. Lastly, passing GNG is irrelevant. ORG is the applicable standard and it requires widespread coverage. John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response www.chicagotribune.com -- published by the Chicago Tribune. The header says it's "Chicago Tribune" and if you click on "home" it takes you to the Chicago Tribune. The Chicago Tribune thinks enough of the subject to publish it under their banner--doesn't really matter which paperboy delivers it to who at that point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International touring (Europe) is enough to pass WP:NBAND. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's notable when a band gets international gigs and organizes a tour, but choral programs frequently "tour" at their own expense[45] as an educational program, rather than something primarily musical. If we apply this notability standard to choirs, there are literally thousands of American high school bands and choirs which will be independently "notable" under this standard, when in fact they are not.--Jahaza (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response the argument made by Jahaza itself is sound, I just do not believe it applies in this case. Certainly self-funded educational tours will not necessarily qualify every such choir as notable, but investigation will show that such tours usually have performances at relatively minor venues. We're looking at gigs from Wrigley Field to Carnegie Hall, having performed with Vienna Boys Choir, Donny Osmond, and Leonard Nimoy. The group has a history at least as far back as 1986. Individually, those may not reach notability but brought together it all means something. And that's reflected by the coverage in the media that the group gets.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: the problem is that they didn't actually perform with the Vienna Boys Choir, they went to a workshop taught by the Vienna Boys Choir, as the citation says and as is reflected in the article "Memories as large as the Alps: European trip thrills singers in Elgin chorus" in the local Daily Herald[46]. Similarly, a letter from the tour company in the Daily Herald[47] says the Carnegie Hall performance was part of a "festival" organized by MidAmerica Productions. That one company is producing performances by 127 different school, church, and community choral groups at Carnegie Hall in the next four months alone.[48]--Jahaza (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the extensive coverage more than surpasses WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage to merit inclusion. --Michig (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not inof signifikans or spicialiti, djust a jusjual advertaizment. (Sori for mai erors, I onli spik Inglish, not rait it.) 185.19.20.240 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Your comments are of course always welcome at Wikipedia. What I need to ask is that if you cannot write English, how can we be confident that you can also read English? That certainly can weigh in to evaluation of your comments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or maybe you're just pulling our leg. Sparafucil (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 'Band notability' guidelines (do we need different criteria for Category:Choirs of children?) cites either of independent press coverage, "most prominent of the local scene" Sparafucil (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of One: Kagayaku Kisetsu e characters[edit]

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

These series characters, as a set, are not independently notable from the main series, as shown through their lack of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) A merge or redirect to the parent article's character section should suffice. The parent article is a GA and sufficiently covers the characters. czar 14:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar 14:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 14:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 14:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently convincing of its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't have the kind or number of references to justify a claim of notability. I found nothing substantive to add after an independent search for more. KDS4444^Talk 00:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main page
- Kid official website shows 12 pictured characters [49] 9 of which are listed in VADB
- Nexton's official website shows 6 main girls, and Tactics shows 6 girls main (see One article)
- VADB coverage of the OAV showing only 5 notable voice actors.VADB
- Current count is 7 main + 8 supporting + 3 from adaptations. that's about 18 characters. That can be handled by the main.
- Wiki text is about 13 kB so it's not a size issue.
- Main article covers franchise. There isn't a large set of articles under the One brand that warrants maintaining a separate character list.

Well those are my thoughts. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Angus, in this case (not all) I have found little in the form of reception of the characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SwisterTwister, without objection to a redirect in its place. I am in opposition to a merge as the material is not appropriately sourced. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not need standalone article. Music1201 (talk) 00:40, 27 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. And rename to "... primaries". Sandstein 09:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election in American Samoa, 2016[edit]

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

As the first sentence of these five articles clearly states, unlike the 50 U.S. states plus Washington D.C. (see previous AfD), these territories will not participate in the presidential election, so the mere existence of these articles is slightly misleading. While the major parties hold primary contests in these territories, they do so at their own discretion, similarly to the Democrats Abroad primary, 2016. So while the major parties' individual primaries and caucuses are valid topics, these ones IMHO aren't. PanchoS (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't agree with the stated rationale for deletion. These are real elections, covered in the relevant media; the chosen delegates vote at the conventions. (Puerto Rico elects 60 Democratic delegates, which is more than about half of the states get.) Our paperless encyclopedia has room to accomodate the details of every presidential cycle and I don't see why we would go out of our way to remove them. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos: Take a single look at the lead of any of these and you'll immediately see these article don't cover real existing primaries but a non-existing presidential election. Puerto Rico doesn't elect 60 Democrat delegates – registered Democrats Party of Puerto Rico does. This is not about wasting space but about an incorrect topic. --PanchoS (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, these are very legitimate and very real presidential primaries. If anything, they could be renamed to reflect the fact that they only participate in the primaries, but that's explained at the beginning of these articles. Why bring these to AfD and not just ask them to be renamed? You mentioned the Democrats Abroad primary... The Moose is loose! 20:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Moose: Indeed, the primaries (like American Samoa Republican caucus, 2016 and American Samoa Democratic caucus, 2016) are very legitimate and real. Of course I didn't nominate those for deletion, why would I? I think you got me wrong here. --PanchoS (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I didn't realize there were separate pages for each party's primary in some of those territories. Regardless, I think I would prefer to have both major parties in the same article for each territory in these small contests, and rename/merge content. That's not a discussion for AfD, but since we're here now... The Moose is loose! 15:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename all to "United States presidential primaries in [territory], 2016". ansh 666 22:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to United States presidential primaries in American Samoa, 2016 and so on. Agree with nominator that "election" is the incorrect qualifier, but the content is still useful under the right qualifier. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos and Ahnoneemoos: There's no content beyond what is covered by the more specific, and of course very legitimate topics targeted to the individual caucuses. --PanchoS (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have specific articles for the Puerto Rican caucuses; only the general one under discussion in this AfD. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The territories participate in their party conventions and the elections have full coverage, no doubt about it. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Indeed, no doubt about that, and no doubt about that earth is a globe, but neither is what the rationale is about. --PanchoS (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos & others, and Rename per Ahnoneemoos.--JayJasper (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as above, although the current titles should remain as redirects - not everyone would necessarily know people in the territories don't get to participate in November, so they'd be a reasonable search term. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:14, 30 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) 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gellu Srinivas yadav[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Sole reference only identifies subject as someone who made a legal filing, and does nothing to establish his notability. Article is basically a resume. ubiquity (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A student leader, who does not seem to have attracted any significant coverage as required for WP:BIO. I had PRODded it; the PROD was removed without comment. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable student leader without reliable sources. Fails WP:Notability (people). Vipinhari || talk 17:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico[edit]

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

An extraordinary WP:POVFORK. Violates every letter of WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. On a sidenote, I think we should be able to speedily delete these sort of essays rather than allow people to have a seven day soapbox AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article and I see it as an interesting, short article about viral video that became a poster child in the Presidential primary campaigns of both Trump and Sanders, who used the Carrier move to Mexico to talk about the economic plight of the middle class as a consequence of offshoring manufacturing. Probably as a consequence of the use by these 2 Presidential candidates, a number of journalists and analysts have used the Carrier move in this same way, as a poster child to discuss the impact of moving jobs abroad on American workers, and as poster child for discussion/analysis of what the consequences of Trumps proposed 35% import duty would be. (Full disclosure: I have a GE air conditioner.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles I have created during this campaign: America (advertisement), and Act of Love (political statement and advertisement).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect to Carrier Corporation. There is no reason why content related to this example of outsourcing could not be included in the corporation's page. Neutrality^talk 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the video and its use by the Sanders and Trump campaigns on the corporations page could be WP:UNDUE in an article on the company.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY. Article has undergone substantive expansion, including events and significant media coverage post-dating this AFD nomination.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is surprising that this article is still up. As AusLondonder explained, it violates WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Do we highlight the business decisions made by every company? The event has already been written about on the Carrier page and includes information about the Presidential involvement in the issue. While E.M. Gregory has revised the article and added more details - this does not make it any more legitimate as a Wikipedia article than did the original version. As Drm310 stated on the talk page of the article, it does not have enough enduring notability to merit a standalone article. Delete and let’s move on. CrayonCreations (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move continues to make headlines, today's Financial Times here: [50].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is very much routine coverage of business news. Avon is moving its headquarters from the US to the UK. Where's the article? Can you show me any other similar article that has ever existed? AusLondonder (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viral videos with political impact and pages of their own? I linked to 2 above, but see also: Death of Sandra Bland, 2011 Sindh Rangers shooting incident, Kony 2012, Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney, I Am a Ukrainian, there are many more, the political impact of viral videos is a reality.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appeared to misunderstand my question. This article is presented as an article about a business decision, not a "viral video"; that only plays a part. I asked how many other articles exist about businesses moving some of their operations? AusLondonder (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only editor to tire of Auslander's BATTLEGROUND and WIKIHOUNDING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As lede states and sourcing affirms, subject is notable on 4 counts: 1.) as an offshoring that received far more than routine news coverage, due to, 2.) a viral video that attracted, 3.) attention Bernie Sanders, and even more attention form Donald Trump, which resulted in, 4.) financial and political journalists, economists, and political scientists discussing the Carrier move from Indianapolis to Mexico both as an example of offshoring and as a way to query the facts of Trump's assertions or impact of his tariff proposals.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Onwuanibe[edit]

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

Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. This seem like a WP:RESUME. I think it's necessary to remind the article creator that Wikipedia is not a place to publish their resume. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article as O. is oftenly cited in 'Tradtional African Medicine'.--Bussakendle (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC). There were 35 visits within two days time.--Bussakendle (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC). There were 86 visits within three days time.--Bussakendle (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author should bear in mind that the number of visits over the last three days, which he cites, is more than likely fellow editors such as myself being invited to view the page to pass comment and judge whether it warrants deletion rather than evidence of a groundswell of public interest. As it stands the page is no more than a curriculum vitae or resume and the citations are not being used to prove notability but merely to establish what year he was born, what junior seminary he attended or in which city he now lives. I'd suggest the author takes the opportunity whilst the page is being discussed to re-write it in order to establish why he thinks the subject is notable enough to have a dedicated Wikipedia page and use sources and citations to re-enforce the claim of notability rather than just prove basic school and residency claims. If the page is not drastically improved I'd advocate Delete Pupsbunch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your assumption, the visitor count was mostly by critics, does not fit. The number 86 is on user visits only. The overall clicks were 238 in these 3 days.

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/#project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=all-agents&start=2016-03-05&end=2016-03-24&pages=Richard_C._Onwuanibe

Nevertheless, I agree to Your request for more information. I'll do my best.--Bussakendle (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not see anything in his CV to point to notability. He has been a professor only in the American sense. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 26 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. No chance of, or reason for, being deleted. Geschichte (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kvinnefossen[edit]

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

this article is very short wiki tamil 100 07:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. The Norwegian Wikipedia has a great entry for this, https://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvinnefossen, and if we had someone translate it, it could make a great article. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being short is not a deletion criterion. See WP:STUB. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid deletion rationale. Appears to meet named natural features criteria in WP:GEOLAND when sources on the Norwegian articles are taken into account. If it does fall short, then yes it should be deleted. But this Afd is not based on policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. A recognized tourist attraction [51][52][53][54] (and here's an English-language source from 1791! [55]) Notable per WP:GEOLAND. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.P.C.Yadav[edit]

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

Has only one vague mention in a news website and the article was not about him. This is like an advertisement article. Greek Legend (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Don't Delete. The information provided here is absolutely correct and does not comply with any advertising benefits.The person who has been mentioned in this page is a senior doctor and the page has been created because much of the people of Allahabad,India need information and search for him.Further more citations and contents will soon be added as required.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshvardhansinghyadavsp (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC) — Harshvardhansinghyadavsp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

These are not reasons for keep. Demonstrated notability is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Citations Added Dear Sirs,the references and independent citations have been added.I hope it is helpful.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshvardhansinghyadavsp (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not WP:RS. They are from online local ads. Greek Legend (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cited sources are essentially directory listings. No evidence of significant, independent coverage. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is director of surgery at a hospital, this rarely is enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Novel Markup Language[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No worthwhile redirect targets. czar 05:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources in the jp-wiki. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? It has none. czar 07:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, fails WP:GNG. Digital Novel Markup Language [ja] doesn't have any sources either. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a Visual_novel#Engines section to the visual novel article and made a subsection about DNML there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an interesting technology but sadly after digging around for notable references I can find none really (save the one primary source). Unlike some other systems (where sources are hard to find due to them being in languages other than English), this one does not seem to have been very popularly used (and thus no one wrote about it either). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 20:36, 29 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Dua[edit]

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

This page was created & edited by a few linked accounts (including one that was the subject of the article) without ever establishing WP:Notability or declaring WP:COI despite clear bias, and the content remains strictly in violation of WP:Promo JamesG5 (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content is genuine and fresh, not rewritten. I request you to please have a look or review again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravar (talk • contribs) 05:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC) — Gauravar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. —teb728 t c 07:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blatant spam for a hair transplant business, and a M.D. who fails WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 23 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) 10:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jimerson[edit]

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

Promotional and refbombed BLP lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Loaded with primary source and non-independent refs but nothing reliable and in-depth about the individual. I don't think a redirect to any one work would be worthwhile but open to suggestions. czar 04:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 04:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 04:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of all the 43 references in this revision, not one is to an independent, reliable source. Mduvekot (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article has no obvious signs of the applicable notability, nothing actually convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 30 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 and...(The preceding comment added by Lourdes to resolve breaking of the Afd script)) moved back to a userspace draft, User:Gillianhai/sandbox. This appears to be a class project (Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of British Columbia/FNH 200 102 (Term 2)) and the instructor is guiding the students, so it is best to keep the text as a draft rather than deleting outright. @JudyCChan:, I suggest that you have your students improve existing articles, such as miso, instead of creating new articles on existing topics. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History, Process, Benefits, and Kinds of Miso[edit]

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

Strongly may not meet MOS, this should be declined if it is a draft. This seems terrible. 333 -blue 04:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a student entry, which explains the way it's written - it's fairly common for students to write something in an essay style since that's what they're used to. Offhand we don't really need this specific page because we already have an article at miso, but some of the information could probably be merged as long as it's sourced properly and is written to fit the WP:MOS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unacceptable content fork of Miso. All content that would fall under this long, unwieldy, counterintuitive article title should instead be covered at Miso and I see no reason for a separate article to exist. In all honesty, the fact that this strange article was created by a student is of no interest to me. Instructors should ensure that students thoroughly understand our core content policies before unleashing them and their articles on the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting convincing independent notability and needs for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete as an unacceptable fork of Miso. It should never have been let out of the students' sandbox. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an entry from my students and I let it out of their sandbox. We followed a set of [Out of Sandbox] instructions and got confused. Please allow us time to merge its content with Miso. As an instructor who created this assignment, I am learning a lot, including MOS. JudyCChan talk —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not requiring its own article as noted by other editors. As to the comment by User:Cullen328 that "ason for a separate article to exist. In all honesty, the fact that this strange article was created by a student is of no interest to me. Instructors should ensure that students thoroughly understand our core content policies before unleashing them and their articles on the encyclopedia," I agree, but the underlying problem is that instructors should ensure that they understand our core content policies before ensuring that students understand our core content policies. The real problem isn't the students; it is the instructors. In this case the instructor may understand the content policies and may have simply made a mistake. However, Wikipedia class assignments are often troublesome. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miso. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete because it is an implausible redirect. You have to give the student serious credit for their work; this "essay" is miles ahead of the current article at miso in terms of detail, history and sourcing. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 11:50, 24 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 flyer 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digon (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There are no other Wikipedia articles about subjects simply called "Digon". There are mostly partial title matches on this disambiguation page, which was previously deprodded by Boleyn with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is irrelevant whether there are other articles, but whether there are other valid entries, perhaps per MOS:DABMENTION. In this case, there are no partial matches (unless the valley could never be called simply 'Digon' and then that would be a partial match). This is a dab and surname page is one, and is structured appropriately as such per MOS:DABNAME: For short lists of name holders, new sections of Persons with the surname Xxxx or Persons with the given name Xxxx can be added below the main disambiguation list. It has a sufficient number of entries. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: valid and helpful dab page. PamD 12:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let digons be digons. There are more than enough entries for a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 23 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 Trees for Cities. Content may be merged from history to the extent that editorial consensus allows. Sandstein 21:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tree-athlon[edit]

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

trivial event, local references and notices only seem to be available DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 04:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trees for Cities. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trees for Cities. WP:PRESERVE appropriate content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 30 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) 10:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Togbe[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. While "founder of the first Nigerian Muslim high-fashion Magazine, Hayati" is a credible claim of significance, its not an evidence of notability] Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:45, 8 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£} 11:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:47, 8 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£} 11:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 04:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.. No better sources found. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked everywhere and can't find coverage about her. I think it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Fry[edit]

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

Completely non-notable writer. The news search results are about foreman, sportsperson and broker with the same name. There is no news about this writer. Greek Legend (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and planned to nominate because none of this satisfies any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of being notable. FiendYT ★ 21:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of any indepdent coverage or indepth coverage outside of her website. Also lack of any evidence that reviewers have noticed her works at all. The wording of the article makes it also seem like her works are self published, which makes it even harder to use her works to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 28 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 Closing as Speedy Keep per WP:SK1 and WP:SNOW. The article is a mess but the subject is unquestionably notable. (non-admin closure)-Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Goodman[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT. jps (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page could use better sourcing but the subject is significant appearing in two popular television series. Might be worth merging but not deleting. Meatsgains (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is horrible, but the character was significant enough to warrant a show. Does need more references relating to the character and significance, rather than just a plot listing.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only is Saul a major character in two hit series, he's become emblematic of a particular type of lawyer (or lawyer cliche): e.g. [56][57][58][59][60][61] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eminently notable as a character in his own right (see e.g. this article from the Illinois Bar Journal). The article needs an overhaul to cut the overlong plot summary content and focus more on the wider real-life context and influence of the character. —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The character is a major character in two hit series, and therefore is notable. Ethanlu121 (talk) 12:22, 23 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 flyer 01:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Bourque[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. While the article does make some claims towards asserting notability, it is entirely unreferenced. A google search and a google book search have yielded no sources where James Bourque is the primary subject. 4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, there is nothing that makes the article's subject notable. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as of now. Absolutely no on-line coverage, but given his privy council status there is a chance of offline reliable sources which would make him notable. I've done searches for offline sources, but can't find anything in the academic world that would suggest notability. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If other sources have been found, then by all means keep. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did a ProQuest "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" search, and was able to get this up to six references. I'm still not thrilled with the volume of sourcing I was able to find — it's still far too dependent on obituaries for my liking — but I do think that being one of the very rare non-cabinet ministers ever to be invested into the Privy Council is enough of a claim of notability to keep, because if we did delete this he would be the only person in the entire history of the Privy Council of Canada without an article of his own. So I'm down with the keep, but would still like to see further reference improvement if at all possible. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't withdraw my nomination at this point, as two people have already voted delete. However, with Bearcat's excellent work I now support Keeping this article.4meter4 (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sourcing Bearcat dug up. The Interior (Talk) 08:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stump (game)[edit]

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

Doubtful notability for this drinking game. Tagged for notability since May of 2014. A previous version of article was deleted at AfD, but due to the passage of time, CSD G4 is inappropriate. Article has been PROD'ed and declined recently. My opinion is this falls short of satisfying WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable drinking game — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanlu121 (talk • contribs) 19:58, March 23, 2016‎ (UTC)
Delete - I {{prod}}-ed this recently and didn't realize it had been prodded last month. Lacks notability and reliable sources. 2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:3C8A:96:C1AE:B61E (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Merge – to List of drinking games, to enhance the article per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 30 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, unreferenced BLP--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Murray[edit]

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

Article should be deleted as per WP:TNT. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication that any of this is even true. Blythwood (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO as a gsearch brings up nothing useable, also article creator's name GAB123Dublin (a spa) is eerily similar to article subject - Gabriel Murray of Dublin. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but BLP Prod will likely take effect first. IMDb entry appears to show notability, but as it is an unreliable source, and no other evidence to meet GNG, delete is the proper end result.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:40, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MATHEMATICAL MODELLING OF NON-INTERACTING TANK SYSTEMS[edit]

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

Article appears to be an essay. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say that you are correct. The subject of the article is a mathematical modeling technique for a very specific scenario, and while mathematical modeling as a broad mathematical subject would warrant article coverage in a general sense, there are very few cases on Wikipedia where a specific use case of it is given coverage, per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: ([1], [2], [3]), and you could argue that some of those aren't fit for various reasons, either. Also, the article looks to be mostly OR. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. GabeIglesia (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To narrow, non-notable, and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Magidin (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Bazj (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Tpdwkouaa explained above, we have an article for mathematical modeling, but unless a specific application has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it probably shouldn't have its own article. It appears that the application of mathematical modeling for non-interacting tank systems has received at least some coverage in scholarship (see, e.g., this paper), but a discussion of that application would likely be best placed within the context of the article for mathematical modeling (per WP:PAGEDECIDE). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.When I PRODed this it was because "WP:NOTHOWTO. And is the topic notable. And WP:DYNAMITE. The article is incomprehensible. And a dollar to a donut it's been copied from a textbook." I think that covers all the bases....TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the unlikely event that this isn't a verbatim copy from a book or elsewhere, then it would certainly be WP:OR. Neither notable nor appropriate here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:47, 30 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, no prejudice against recreation after reliable sources have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siham Jalal[edit]

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

Article does not meet general notability guideline. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the original Arabic Wiki page (which this article is translated from) would fall short of establishing sufficient notability. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincingly better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 24 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 speedily deleted by 78.26 per WP:A7. (non-admin closure) —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elena pogrebizhskaja[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:55, 23 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.

^ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/magazine/sleep-away-camp-for-postmodern-cowboys.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[AnneSophia2016-01-30-1] Anne Sophia Hermansen (2016-01-30). "Skal mænd have fri abort?" [Should men have the abortion?]. ASH (in Danish). Retrieved 2016-03-14.

[2] "Statutory rape victim forced to pay child support". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2016-03-14.

[3] "He says he said no to sex, now says no to child support". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved 2016-03-14.

[InformationDK2016-02-4] "Juridisk abort er en god ting – også for kvinderne" [Legal abortion is a good thing - even for women]. Information (in Danish). Retrieved 2016-03-14.

[5] "Woman Steals Ex-Boyfriend's Sperm, Has Twins, Sues For Child Support". Mommyish. Retrieved 2016-03-14.

[Quora2016-03-13-6] "What do international feminists think about equal reproductive rights for men and women? - Quora". www.quora.com. Retrieved 2016-03-13.

[7] Choices, NHS. "How effective is contraception - Contraception guide - NHS Choices". www.nhs.uk. Retrieved 2016-03-14.

[8] ttp://www.nift.ac.in/alumni_2015.html

[9] ttps://www.facebook.com/sujit.mhr/

[10] ttp://www.nift.ac.in/delhi/downloads/ANTARAGNI_2014_IIT_KANPUR.pdf

[11] ttp://www.abraxasnu.com/hotwheels/8-things-keep-mind-buying-new-car/

[12] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/magazine/sleep-away-camp-for-postmodern-cowboys.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]