Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 March	26 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Industrial Style[edit]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Original research, see talk page for more info. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This has been around most of a decade without improvement since 2007 other than categories. Having no article is better than an article that consists of nothing except original research. The topic exists and is likely notable, but the only way to make the article compliant with policy is to nuke it and wait for someone interested in doing it right. In short, nuke it and let someone start over if they want. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it has been stubified and sourced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is such a thing as "Industrial Style", it would be in interior design, where polished concrete floors and exposed brickwork feature prominently in open concepts. See for example this article from the WSJ. The examples given in the current revision describe a style of automotive design for which, as far as I can tell, no sources exist. Mduvekot (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that the article has been rewritten, I no longer have any objections. Mduvekot (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ihaveacatonmydesk, Mduvekot and Dennis Brown please have another look. I have edited the article to remove original research and add references. ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that, although I'm not sure that "Style" should be capitalized. It isn't perfect, but it gets it down to the bare bones of what the topic is supposed to cover, and at first glance, has sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a proper noun so Style should not be capitalized.It might create a mess to move it while AfD is in progress so I'll wait. ~Kvng (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article has been totally re-written I can withdraw the nomination (I guess?). Mduvekot hasn't replied yet but it looks like he wouldn't be opposed to having an article about the interior design trend. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 18:25, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Wendland[edit]

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

Questions about general notability, PROD removed by article author. Laber□^T 23:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Deletion was proposed by user Piotris today, citing insufficient coverage. To note, the Wikipedia page for Angela Wendland has been patrolled and reviewed for notability without any page issues found prior to this proposal.

The Wikipedia:General notability guideline states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

The page for Angela Wendland has 18 references that are from and not limited to magazines, newspapers, websites and company social media platforms. The subject has received considerable mention in a majority of the sources provided. Additionally, more References have been added, including national news source USA Today and other entertainment sources under Additional Ventures further establishing notability of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitleyheights (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims do not add up to being notable, and the sources are a mix of unreliable sources, primary sources and sources that either make no mention of Wendland at all or only mention her in passing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In primary sources 5 and 6, Wendland is a main source of topic - pictured and named with video footage. Please specify which sources "make no mention of Wendland at all", because she is pictured, named and/or included in video footage in each of the links provided. Wendland's occupation is spokesmodeling. The article was created to outline her role in the industry, an industry that is largely covered only through via video and photos. Secondary sources (JStor, etc.) are rare to find, as Wendland is not a veteran in the industry (and even if she was secondary sources are not typical in the brand ambassador world). I request the article be given more time and consideration for further experience to be included as her career continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitleyheights (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as none of this actually has convincing signs of convincing notability, thus delete because it's still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked her up in the databases I have access to and didn't find any good RS news sources. I think she's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:52, 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 07:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project[edit]

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

Fails NPOV. There are inadequate independent references, for, looking at the affiliations on the published papers, the authors of references 2,3, 4, 5, 6,7, and 8 are all affiliated with the project or its sponsor. Ref 1 is a general reference about the overall subject, including the subject as only one of multiple examples. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and Draft later if needed as this is still questionable at best, better improvements are needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 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 Speedy Deleted as blatant hoax. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tunstall[edit]

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

No references or sources Thursby16 (talk) 23:13, 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. Per SNOW. We're not the news, this is not Watergate, this isn't even a day old--having this as an article already is TOOSOON to put it mildly. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz extramarital affairs allegation[edit]

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

notnews, recentism, blp.

Recreate later if this becomes a sustained issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is not a transient, minor incident but one that is likely - by objective evaluation - to develop over time. Citing the precedent of Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004, this should be kept for seven days and the AfD reopened at that time. BlueSalix (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the current level of coverage, this is adequately described already in a single paragraph at National Enquirer. If the story gets bigger then maybe it could be mentioned in Cruz and Trump subarticles on their 2016 campaigns.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I went to nominate this as well. Here's my original nomination: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Currently, this is just gossip about a presidential candidate with no evidence of lasting notability. From NOTNEWS, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

Moreover, there's major concerns about WP:BLPGOSSIP which states "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."

WP:PUBLICFIGURE also address this issue by saying "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Toward this, I don't think we have a scandal. Just gossip. If, and only if, this develops into a scandal which long lasting impact on Cruz's political career, then there should be an article about it. Until then, it should not have an article.

Given the BLP concerns and what I see as policy violations, I recommend a speedy delete. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Speedy delete is uncalled for. It technically satisfies notability an WP:BLP, but I'm not sure a standalone article is the best choice at this point. At this point it probably should be merged to the article about his presidential campaign, Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 since there have been several recent smears and attacks involving him and Trump(small hands, liar, nude photo of one's wife, tweet implying other wife is not as pretty as opponent's wife, etc). That puts all the little attacks and counterattacks in one convenient article. It seems to satisfy WP:BLP at this point since he is a public figure, he has publicly denied the allegations, and there has been multiple coverages of the allegations and his denial in mainstream media, including the the BBC, Reuters, NBC,The Washington Post and USAToday. Edison (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The major facts have already been merged into National Enquirer. If it gets to be a bigger story about the spat between Cruz and Trump, then we could mention it in both of their campaign articles, not just the Cruz article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've never had a policy of only covering news stories in the article about the newspaper. The mudslinging in the campaign does perhaps deserve its own article,, rather than repeating it in the individual campaign articles. Fox gave significant coverage to the unusual intensity and amount of mud slinging in what is also significant coverage of these allegations. Nothing in WP:BLP says it has to be "confirmed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Granted John Edwards extramarital affair exists, but that's a confirmed case, where the NE allegations against Cruz are so far thin on evidence. The rumors have been picked up by major pubs, so per BLP can be mentioned in the appropriate articles, but this does not need its own, not yet at least. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The concern over WP:NOTNEWS #2 seems to me misplaced: WP:NOTNEWS allows explicitly that "including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate", it simply shouldn't be prioritised over other types of information. This boils down then to whether this story is qualitatively likely to become enduringly notable, and it's reasonable to think that it might be—see my last point below. The allegations certainly aren't routine. WP:RECENTISM is a valid concern but it's not a reason for deletion in itself—see the precedent of Jennifer Wilbanks, mentioned in the essay page. WP:BLP is not clear-cut; see below.

EvergreenFir's citation of WP:PUBLICFIGURE at the BLP policy page shows that the appropriateness of the page hangs on whether it can be held to be a "public scandal", and this seems to me quite a blurry issue at this stage. The page may or may not have been created too soon but at this point I think it's best to keep the info for now and reassess later, as BlueSalix suggests, since a time-dependent search on Google News suggests the momentum behind the story is gathering rather than receding.

The gossip point seems to be a key issue here as to whether we might think it will be enduringly notable. WP:BLPGOSSIP does not, I believe, apply, since the article is not simply repeating gossip but covering the allegations as a subject of interest in their own right, supported by reliable sources like the NYT, WP, etc. The wide breadth of coverage in reputable newspapers already suggests that this is probably more than just another gossip story in that respect: I think we need to focus on whether it's notable that the allegation has been made, not whether the content of the allegation itself should be held as a notable feature of Cruz's biography.

I don't object to keeping or merging with no prejudice to recreating the article when more content is available, but I think outright deletion is unnecessary—speedy deletion definitely is, IMO. (Apologies for the hedging: like I said, I don't think the issue is clear-cut and mainly just want to flag up some points against rushing to delete the article.) —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A fair interpretation and opinion, though I don't wholly agree. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON applies as well then? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what's kept me from actually !voting, and in fact I'm going to strike my comment in relation to that. I definitely agree, for example, that there doesn't seem to be enough material to cover just yet to make it merit a full article rather than a section in another article, though that seems a matter of editorial judgement. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The story has now developed to include Marco Rubio-linked persons circulating information about Cruz's sexual history since late 2015. All !votes that this should be deleted on the basis it's a Trump-Cruz spat are now nullified. Please use the strikethrough feature if this describes you. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't merge. Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet. Jonathunder (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also delete Watergate Scandal? BlueSalix (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an established, notable historical event. This is a current event with no confirmation yet. If it hits that threshold, then it gets an article. JamesG5 (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely confirmed. The article is "Ted Cruz Extramarital Affairs Allegations" and it is confirmed there have been allegations. The article is NOT "Ted Cruz Extramarital Affairs" which have not been confirmed. This is an article on media history, not a politician's sex life. BlueSalix (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see a difference between Watergate and whatever made the most recent issue of a gossip magazine, please find a different topic to edit than biographies of living persons. Jonathunder (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources in the article do you consider "gossip magazines"? The Washington Post? Newsweek? Salon? BlueSalix (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asserting that the article is about the media coverage and not the politician's sex life, then I suggest you rename it to Media coverage of the Ted Cruz extramarital affairs allegation. But again, there's no evidence that the media coverage is notable either. The current article is about the allegation itself, and we must determine if the allegation is notable. Decisions to cover certain topics is not just about coverage by media, it's about enduring notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS (a policy). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, please. I'm not saying it shouldn't be talked about, just questioning if the DAY it breaks it gets its own article. Watergate was a historic game changer that rocked America's political & media climate. Candidates being derailed by sex scandals (see John Edwards & Gary Hart) don't rank that high. Watergate had so much impact that if this story gets legs someone will probably call it "Mistress-gate." If this ends up having legs & being more than a blip in the cycle, sure, it gets its own article, but there's no rush & immediate response to news isn't what Wikipedia is for. JamesG5 (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the discussion at Ted Cruz I agree this doesn't warrant its own article at this time, too early to see if it will stay notable enough. Mean tine it's mentioned on the National Enquirer page, and it's been suggested on the Cruz talk page that a mention be made on the page about his 2016 campaign, which seems sensible at this time. JamesG5 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a blip on today's news cycle; too soon to assert that it's a notable event (seems unlikely, but regardless, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). -IagoQnsi (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Along the same lines as Muboshgu. If these allegations are confirmed then a Ted Cruz Extramarital Affair article might be appropriate. Until such a time, the brief descriptions about this incident in related articles are sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizike (talk • contribs) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely solid as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per all the other delete !votes above mine as well as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a hit piece and tabloid fodder. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a non-notable event, it may become a notable event in the future, if the allegations are confirmed. It can be mentioned in related articles, like the one about his presidential campaign. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

So is that delete or merge, Tom29739? BlueSalix (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is WP:TOOSOON to consider having an independent article about this emerging scandal. If the story grows and receives sustained coverage, then an article may be warranted. - Mr X 21:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Closing admin, since the AfD was opened, new reporting has occurred and additional information added to the article. As most delete !votes allowed for conditional recreation in the event the story grows, please disregard everything above this line. We should now re-!vote beginning below. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ - For reasons previously stated above in the old !vote. BlueSalix (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New info in the past 1 hour 10 minutes? this as has been open? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, definitely seems like there are a lot of moving parts here. BlueSalix (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 !vote per person please. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck second vote by User:BlueSalix. Edison (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As did I. That's three times it's been struck.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:BLP. For those arguing Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, the John Edwards extramarital affair is an excellent example of why this article should not exist at this time. When the Edwards affair was only being reported by the National Enquirer, with the mainstream press reporting the rumor but not confirming the underlying accusations, the accusations were being actively removed from Wikipedia. The arguments against inclusion back then still apply today. --Allen3 ^talk 22:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is only one source that is alleging this, and it the National Enquirer is unreliable. Every other story is simply bored reporters rehashing the gossip (no doubt purely for clickbait), but beyond the hype, there is nothing meriting an article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and crap like this has no place in an encyclopedia, unless/until there is multiple, significant, independent coverage. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a classic of WP:NOTNEWS. This is already mentioned in Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016, and there is simply no justification for this as a standalone article. Not every political scandal will meet the expectations outlined in WP:EVENT, and this one surely does not. The original source is notoriously unreliable and the rest of the coverage stems from there, and even if proven true this does not need a separate article to salaciously repeat every claim and counter claim. Fences&Windows 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete. This is a classic of WP:NOTNEWS. This is already mentioned in Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016, and there is simply no justification for this as a standalone article. And I repeat all of the other very good reasons to delete this BS article immediately.--ML (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Admin - please review all of these delete !votes before closing to note how many are, like this one, originating from recently registered Cruz-specific SPA's. Note also how many of these use copy/paste (literally, word for word) of prior SPA argument. BlueSalix (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete over WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPGOSSIP concerns; in the alternative, merge into Ted Cruz as this doesn't (at this time) merit its own article. Rebb ing 23:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural question: I don't believe the arguments raised so far can support speedy deletion under the speedy-deletion policy. Is a deletion discussion permitted to close as speedy delete for a reason not given in the policy? Rebb ing 23:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Allegations he had 5 different affairs allcome up at once? Pure National Enquirer stuff and turns out that is the source. Total BLP violation. Legacypac (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The consensus is overwhelmingly delete. Could someone please close this and do whatever it takes to delete the article already? It is quickly becoming a BLP violation and libel nightmare fast. It's nothing but a magnet for POV agenda pushers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It takes more than a few hours to properly gauge consensus. Let's let this run its proper course. There's no BLP emergency here that can't be addressed with calm editing.- Mr X 00:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think it's very obvious that delete is the consensus. You have editors from various standpoints on politics who are all calling for this article's deletion. That is a very clear consensus. Further, because this article is now under discretionary sanctions, an editor may only revert once in a 24 hour period. With the amount of unsourced allegations and egregious BLP violations there currently, it seems a no brainer to me that an article where there's already a huge consensus for deletion (such as this one) should be deleted as soon as possible. Besides, it's truly doubtful that we will see anything but delete votes in this AFD filing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I strongly object to a speedy deletion of an article when the event it is based on (The published allegation and its denial, with counteraccusations against Trump) has just occurred today, and Google news already shows over 3 MILLION stories published about it.That smacks of censorship. It seems to be a notable incident in the 2016 presidential campaign. The AFD has just started and more than one editor calls for keeping it.(Merge amounts to "keep"). Let it run the usual seven days. If coverage of it peters out and there are no new revelations, it will die a natural death. To speedy it invites more digital ink spilled at deletion review. Many commentors here do not seem to understand that the article is NOT a statement that Cruz had affair. It is about the allegation, his highly publicized and lengthy denial of the allegation, with accusations that Trump conspired with the newspaper, and these things have been extensively covered by mainstream media, satisfying WP:BLP and WP:N. Many of the delete arguments smack of "IDONTLIKEIT." Edison (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:NOTNEWS, et al. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTNEWS. Should the story continue into the distant future then we can consider and article. Until then anything relevant can be merged to Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 and National Enquirer.LM2000 (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete This may end up being a thing, but at the moment it isn't. BLP issues, NOTNEWS, TOOSOON etc. are all good reasons to delete at this point. Hobit (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cruz's main article or campaign article. Deserves to be mentioned, just not standalone. Buggie111 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is already mentioned in Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 article, as well as in the National Enquirer article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's already got a sentence or two in Cruz's campaign article. That's about all that's warranted at present. If this becomes a major scandal that goes into history books, like Watergate, then we can recreate this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - these development are likely to have objective impact on the ongoing polls and related debates. Considering the level of allegations againist a prominent person from a source that has a history of exposing such acts, i sincerely believe the article shall be preserved.-- ~ Irrigator^talk 04:56, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stripes (book)[edit]

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

An apparently recently published book (2016) with no references to establish notability, no publisher information and an author using a pseudonym, with no google hits for the author. Frankly, it's difficult to tell if the book is self-published or not. Google searches for "Stripes 2016" "Stripes Tori Beram" "Stripes novel" etc turn up nothing. freshacconci talk to me 20:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talk to me 20:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence for the existence of this book (I also tried searching character names to no avail), much less substantial coverage in reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not been able to find anything that shows that the book exists. If Dixon H. has a copy, perhaps they can provide the name of the publisher and an ISBN? Mduvekot (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. have been unable to find anything about this book apart from wikiarticle (I know gsearch can be limited in its scope but still.....), a case of WP:HOAX? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon at best, not yet convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 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 07:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Non-Subscribing Christians[edit]

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

Non notable religious community, article unreferenced for 18 months, I can only find mentions in blogs or on Facebook. Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also mentioned on the website of a historic church in Ireland, which I believe from my research into this area of theology is sponsoring this organisation directly.- http://www.moneyreaghnonsubscribers.com/ It is also mentioned by a Universalist Christian writer and researcher of longstanding here - http://boyinthebands.com/archives/fellowship-of-non-subscribing-christians-launches/ MGHLane (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly in depth coverage and that is what Wikipedia requires, brief mentions and blog posts are not sufficient. Theroadislong (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could potentially be a merge or redirect to Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland, even if the institutional connection is informal. Probably insufficiently notable on its own at this point. 2602:304:B167:14B0:0:0:0:3F (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- This appears to be a very small UK denomination trying to unite Unitarians with Liberal Trinitarians, and with a separate (but corresponding) organization in Ireland. Merging to Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland ought not to be an option. Their AGMs appear to attract about 35 people (links from their own webpage), including 20 ministers. This suggests as denomination with perhaps 20 local churches. We normally allow articles on denominations, even very small ones, but not on local churches. However this seems to lie at the limits of viability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as the current article is not convincing to actually keep and my searches found nothing better at all thus delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet our notability requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:22, 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 Speedy Keep per nominator's withdrawal in the face of evidence offered showing topic notability. Boleyn's recognition of Arxiloxos's research is much appreciated Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Nightmare (film)[edit]

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

I can't find that this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Paleface Jack, Blanchardb, TexasAndroid and Shadowjams. Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least a few substantial reviews are available online to verify this film as a notable exemplar of the Canuxploitation genre [1][2][3], and a GBooks search turns up a number of snippeted books that also appear to cover this film (duly noting that not all of the search results relate to this film, since there are others the same name). --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn I've been too harsh here. Boleyn (talk) 23:08, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Brady[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. All references but one are to youtube or a site controlled by the subject gadfium 19:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one independent source is to a local newspaper in 2010 which pictures the subject on the front page performing a farewell ceremony at school. This is not sufficient to show notability. The link to his upcoming performance in a school play is not viewable by the public, but such a performance does not show notability.

An earlier version of this article was speedy deleted at Sir brady. The current article is significantly better developed than that was.-gadfium 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all of this is still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable "Youtube star" lacking coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly a self promotion. Everything I am sure is uploaded by the YouTube artist himself [4]. He even tweeted that he now has a Wikipedia page now. [5] --TheDomain (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also based on his sites number of views, he is not notable in terms of You Tube at this stage. NealeFamily (talk) 21:04, 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 Keep as I simply see nothing else regarding endings (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DevOps toolchain[edit]

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

Clearly fails to be a notable Software development process, couldn't find any reliable source for it. Kavdiamanju (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep F-ing ridiculous. Another hair-trigger obsessive CSD sniper (this was first CSD-ed as "vandalism" and discussion refused, see User_talk:Kavdiamanju#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_DevOps_toolchain) who needs a damn good topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, On this platform, I do not expect words like F-ing ridiculous and damn good topic ban. I can understand that you might not agree to the AFD and nomination, you can openly express your views and raise your voice agianst it, but certainly it doesn't mean that you can use any words for any individual here on Wikipedia. Kavdiamanju (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't behave like such a monumental WP:DICK. You described a new article on an obvious technical area of current interest (which I assume you have no familiarity with) as "vandalism" and tried to speedy delete it. Then, instead of discussing your nonsensical speedy deletion request (far from your only one) you simply went to AfD. You missed out WP:PROD, BTW. Your judgement is clearly not fit to be trusted with CSD. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be reliably sourced. Didn't check the sources but I assume that nominator did WP:BEFORE, but I see no mention of their unreliability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple reliable sources included Gartner and Forrester the notion that it fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability is preposterous. Kharnagy (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Baseless AfD nomination. Thparkth (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone who actually works in the field knows that DevOps is a notable topic of interest in contemporary IT. (Whether or not this contains enough information to justify a separate article, as opposed to merger into the DevOps article, is a matter I don't express an opinion on, but that's not what the nom is proposing anyway.) I second Andy Dingley's exhaustion with people who rush to whack CSD tags on things without even bothering to spend five minutes to research the topic. SJK (talk) 02:49, 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. While some "keep" opinions confuse personal merits with notability, there are also opinions that assert that our sourcing requirements are met, and there's too little discussion of the sources to yield informed consensus. Sandstein 07:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Singhal[edit]

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

Coming first in a civil service exam is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found loads of expected coverage but everything here is still questionable for any solidly applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on WP:PROF or any of the specialized guidelines but what about GNG? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Admirable person but not notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Accept . its not that she was topper of an Exam , it clearly written in the article . She was the 1st to achieve that position being an Physically challenged woman , the exam is worlds Second toughest exam. For the same reason she has fought with the Government Of India for more than 4 years . To bring a constitutional change where even a physically challenged person can also be taken in to a service . which created a great impact in the society . Ramsingh 10:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Strongly Accept cited references clearly point to notability. Other reasons, as per Ramsingh. --Muzammil (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are strong references, and Notable. She is not just a civils topper, but there are many other factors to make her notable like her fight against govt. to make constitutional change in favour of Differently abled persons --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What counts is how much a person has been noted, not their worthiness, however much that may be. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Strongly Keep There are strong references, she is notable personality in India , all physically challenged persons see her as an Semi Godess , Inspiration to millions of People in India . She has strong Media Coverage too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.63.6 (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC) — 124.123.63.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I am not at all concerned about who she is. But, i can see that the sources used in the article qualify WP:RS. The article has been written in a neutral way as well, thus not making it some promotion or advertisement. The coverage she received makes her article notable for existence on Wikipedia. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- significant independent coverage in multiple countries, linked to and noted in the article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Written in a NPOV & notability is there here due to the fact that she is the first Physically challenged woman to top UPSC exam which is considered the most difficult exam in India. Yohannvt (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Mr RD 21:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly junior civil servant. NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only coverage she has received are a few short articles that relates to being first on the exam and having a disability. I would say this is not notable. Fails WP:BLP1E "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time". We need to apply notability objectively. I believe many of the comments above are emotionally based. MB (talk) 17:38, 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 07:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Slam singles champions in the 2000s[edit]

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

Everything in this article is already in the articles List of Grand Slam men's singles champions and List of Grand Slam women's singles champions. No need to merge as it's all there. No need to redirect as nothing links here. Someone just grabbed a 10 year period from 2000–2009. It's been an orphan for 2 years for good reason. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Duplication of info and a semi-arbitrary time period doom this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Duplication with no added value.--Wolbo (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 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 07:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Charls[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based exclusively on a YouTube video with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all, of a person who's claimed but not properly verified as having set a world record. As always, setting a world record is not an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because it's claimed -- reliable source media coverage about the subject has to properly verify that the claim is true, and even the YouTube video (which is of the dive itself) just asserts that the subject is attempting to tie an existing world record rather than to outdo one. This was already nominated for deletion earlier today, and then the creator blanked it so it was speedied accordingly -- but then the same creator recreated it again 20 minutes later, so it's not eligible for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content. But the volume of RS coverage needed to make him notable for Wikipedia purposes has not been shown, so it's still a delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I let this one off originally because it seemed like there were sources, but on second look I see that none of there are reputable and independent. Consequently, it doesn't meet WP:GNG. I also believe both pictures constitute WP:COPYVIO, and flagged the first one for deletion at commons. ubiquity (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not a convincing enough article, nothing for the applicable notability also. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 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 redirect to Lego: The Adventures of Clutch Powers. And mention there as appropriate. Sandstein 07:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Clutch Powers: Bad Hair Day[edit]

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

Clearly fails notability guidelines. Previous AfD failed for lack of participation, with no comments or votes in favor of keep. Safiel (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:NOTFILM and basic WP:GNG, as the only sources I could find were either first-party (by Lego, which is invalid per WP:NPOV) or promotional (by retailers selling the product, etc.). Even when looking past guidelines, common sense is enough to see that this film is not notable. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

Redirect/mention, as actually Colonel Wilhelm Klink, in researching I have found this little comedy film spoken of favorably in independent sources which speak about longer film and DVD Lego: The Adventures of Clutch Powers with which it aired,[6][7][8][9] so THAT is a great place to which we can redirect and mention this short. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt: Thanks for the info; I searched through the first three pages of Google and came up with IMDb, Youtube, and some non-notable web pages. While I do support your idea of mentioning this film elsewhere, I still believe the stand-alone article should be deleted. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per MichaelQSchmidt, adding a section to Lego: The Adventures of Clutch Powers with description of this short and its reception. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, The film exists, but it does not warrant its own Wikipage. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:06, 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. Sandstein 07:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mellabes[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage shown, of a musician. There are claims here that might pass WP:NMUSIC if they were properly sourced, but NMUSIC cannot be passed just by asserting that it's passed -- it's the quality and volume of sourcing that determines whether the subject passes NMUSIC or not, not the inclusion of unsourced claims to passing NMUSIC. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tagged this with BLPPROD, but if the sources are not reliable, it shouldn't have been removed. Though that may not matter now it's at AfD. Adam9007 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article in hebrew exists for two years now, but it also unsourced. I've tried to search some information about him in Hebrew, but found nothing besides social media and blogs. Looks like it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Delete for now with no objection to recreation in future, when he gets more notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to remove the mellabes page I made it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marklevi2013 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 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 07:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Negentropy (band)[edit]

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

Band with no strong or properly sourced claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC -- the strongest thing here is "has released two albums", but albums have to be released on notable record labels (not independently) to constitute notability in and of themselves. And the article cites no sources at all, so there's no basis for giving them a WP:GNG pass either. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which bands are entitled to articles just because they exist -- real media coverage, supporting a proper NMUSIC claim of notability, must be present for a band to earn an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches come up with no coverage, no indication of future coverage. Relatively new band; it may be notable in the future, but most likely not now. Esquivalience ^t 18:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to meeting the notability criteria. By the way, that's "has released two singles" (not albums). There's even less notability than the nominator thought. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:17, 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. Sandstein 07:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shataramarie Jackson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician with no strong or properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NMUSIC -- the strongest claim here is that her single "charted" on internet radio stations (but per WP:CHARTS we only accept performance on general charts such as Billboard as conferring notability by virtue of chart placements.) And the sourcing here is entirely to her own self-published primary sources and the internet radio streams, with no coverage in reliable media sources shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a PR platform on which any musician is automatically entitled to have an article just because she exists -- a musician must be reliably sourceable as passing one or more WP:NMUSIC criteria to earn an article on here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if her notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 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 07:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Teen Kingdom[edit]

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

Not a notable website, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. The award was in a niche category. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Atlantic306 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For a 20-year-old website, it doesn't have much coverage in reliable sources. Nothing in Google News or Google Books, and a web search returns affiliate websites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. And we really should do something about the tendentious, abusive dePRODDING activity of an editor whose goal is simply to frustrate enforcement of a notability guideline he disagrees with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 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 redirect. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) NottNott talk|contrib 09:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unstoppable 39 clues[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK NottNott talk|contrib 16:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The 39 Clues#Unstoppable. —teb728 t c 22:34, 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 07:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dhananjay acharya[edit]

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

Promotional, does not meet WP:GNG. Speedy reverted by SPA. ubiquity (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable WP:BIO unsupported by reliable sources Vipinhari || talk 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was an attempt to get this restored at REFUND where they claimed that Acharya made the world's first student social network. I can see nothing to substantiate this and as far as I can tell, StudentWisdom was launched in 2014. That puts it years after Facebook launched as a student-only social network and a year after this network started up. There's no mention of him in India's newspapers from what I can find and a Google search produces nothing either. Even if StudentWisdom was the first social network for students (which appears to not be the case) that in itself doesn't automatically mean that Acharya is notable - he'd still require coverage in independent and reliable sources. I'd suggest speedying this as spam, except that this was recreated quite quickly and I think that a formal AfD would eventually become necessary in order to prevent further re-creation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just speedied StudentWisdom, which was created by a separate editor. I have to ask both editors, Madhu9537 and Ananya9537, what is your relation to one another and do you have a conflict of interest with the articles? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May be Whoever created this article Dhananjay acharya is a notable person.an article published about this person.please check this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveenbt (talk • contribs) 11:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) May be student network created before studentwisdom. but studentwisdom is a first student social network sharing 70% of revenue to the users. please below evidence http://newkannada.com/2015/11/%E0%B2%B9%E0%B2%A3-%E0%B2%97%E0%B2%B3%E0%B2%BF%E0%B2%B8%E0%B3%81%E0%B2%B5-%E0%B2%B8%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%AE%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%9C%E0%B2%BF%E0%B2%95-%E0%B2%9C%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%B2%E0%B2%A4%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%A3.html
http://newkannada.com/2016/01/is-facebook-afraid-of-student-social-network-rival-studentwisdom.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveenbt (talk • contribs) 11:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be a reliable source. I am also a bit confused by it, since the page is labelled "Film News". ubiquity (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the photos and he is a notable person. he is the young CEO, started a company at the age of 22. and created many job opportunities. and he was chief guest of pool campus drive where he is studied in same college just after graduated from 2 years. he is a local famous notable person. and he came from poor family (refer above attached local kannada news paper) and he achieved. according to recent news he is starting a company or service name bhavyabharath with this creating 3000+ jobs in india. So this guy is a inspiration to others. wikipedia is for famous figures. you people should encourage these things.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveenbt (talk • contribs) 05:53, 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. Sandstein 07:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Masini[edit]

If anyone has anything constructive to add, I am all ears. From where I stand all I see is "x****$£$$$""""#####" - Thanks. Jerome_Ornicar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Ornicar (talk • contribs) 13:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, created by a person with an evident conflict of interest if you compare the creator's username to the name of the article subject's own self-launched publishing company, which makes and sources no strong claim to passing WP:NAUTHOR. The referencing here is almost entirely to blogs and YouTube videos, and the only reference which actually counts as reliable source coverage (La Dépeche) isn't substantively about her, but merely namechecks her existence as a participant in the thing that is the subject. Which means that the article is not adequately sourced to pass WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and WP:ADMASQ. The last sentence may indicate more sourcing, and the magazine who named her "one of 50 French people influential in London" is high-circulation, but it is unsourced, and the set of French people in London is small so any entrepreneur of a small business can probably receive an interview. Esquivalience ^t 19:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of unsourced statement, I've found "the set of French people in London is small" is unsourced. I can source the opposite statement with http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18234930 as reference: "More French people live in London than in Bordeaux, Nantes or Strasbourg and some now regard it as France's sixth biggest city in terms of population." and "The French consulate in London estimates between 300,000 and 400,000 French citizens live in the British capital" [emphasis added]. --Dereckson (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Both the article creator user account containing and the publishing house contain "Ornicar", so it's indeed probably an self promotional article. By the way, the article creator should be informed about the paid contributions policy and invited to add relevant disclaimer.
There is a screenshot of the article in L'Express here. Announcement of the publication could be found here. So I guess the reference is L. Da., Judith Masini. Un rêve bilingue., L'Express Théma, #10, April-May-June 2010. --Dereckson (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the youtube link you mention is an interview from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_3. Furthermore this is the article by l'Express : L'Express. Hope that sheds some light on the validity of the sources. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Ornicar (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Further on the point "Not many French people live in London" : Is London really France's 'sixth biggest city'?. L'Express and France3 are national scale media. Source is undoubtedly biased, although the tone was changed to make it compliant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Ornicar (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article simply has no better convincing signs for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 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 keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Yarvin[edit]

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

I started looking at this article with the hope of expanding the sourcing, but quickly found...well, that there basically isn't any.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of coverage of Yarvin, but it falls pretty much exclusively into one of two categories:

Coverage of his booting from the Strange Loop conference for, well, being an unabashed racist:
[Slate http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/curtis_yarvin_booted_from_strange_loop_it_s_a_big_big_problem.html]

Breitbart

Breitbart, again

The Conversation

Fragmentary quotes or namedrops in general articles on "what on earth is this whole Dark Englightenment/Neoreactionary thing anyway"?
Taki

TechCrunch

National Review

American Thinker

BuzzFeed

TechCrunch, again

The only real exception is this blog entry on The Baffler, which is, well, a blog. A blog on a notable site, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source. That's the only coverage I can find absent "he got banned from being a racist" that's more than about two lines long. Essentially it's quintessential WP:BLP1E, and should be deleted on that basis. Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A similar event happened on March 2016, where Yarvin's participation in LambdaConf generated much controversy. It seems to me that as this is the second controversy WP:BLP1E no longer applies. Man thinking —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The LambdaConf ban was directly for the fame of his neoreactionary views, so is part of the same thing - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't much enjoy writing about Yarvin, but he's unlikely to go away just because we don't like him. I'm surprised to see Ironholds holding this out as BLP1E (Yarvin? He's everywhere, from geekdom to the fruitloop politics of the affluent geek's playpen).

Sad to say, because he really is unspeakably obnoxious, he would have been an interesting speaker at LambdaConf. No-one is more "lambdas everywhere" than Yarvin. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; where is the everywhere, then? I'm looking for coverage >2 lines outside Strange Loop and not seeing it. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You listed a fair few yourself, in the nomination (a rather unusual departure for AfDs). If someone makes it to the lowbrow redtops like Buzzfeed, then they really have entered the public consciousness. Not that Buzzfeed is a journal of such repute that you'd wrap your chips in it, but it does refute the notion that Yarvin is only of note in some Randian ivory and monel tower. If you want a readable explanation of Urbit and why the tech geeks are paying interest, then try the Popehat link. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem for this being a separate article right now is that at present, there's basically nothing that's an RS for this stuff. Even Urbit is rather lacking in RSes - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I listed Strange Loop references and one-line mentions. If someone makes it to the lowbrow redtops like Buzzfeed, they've entered the public consciousness. If they do it twice, and not in an offhand way, well, then we care. Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's an additional potential source: NYTimes column mentioning his name Sycron (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sycron: as you say, yes, it mentions his name. That's not what WP:GNG calls for; it has to be substantive coverage. Ironholds (talk)
Merge and redirect to Dark Enlightenment. He's marginally notable, but it's entirely for the DE/neoreaction stuff (which the LambdaConf ban was directly part of). The rest is marginal fluff at this stage. This shows in the article, which has turned into a fancruft piece made of references to his own blog because the third party sources to support a BLP article worth keeping as a separate article don't seem to actually exist. So add what little in Curtis Yarvin actually has third-party RS verifiability to that, and redirect there - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a merge to either a political or an Urbit article. The problem is that Yarvin has two aspects to him: political and technical. Only by having a stand-alone article for him can we really represent this stuff. As he has already been canned from two conferences because of this overlap, the overlap is one of the most significant aspects about him. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but of those two things, on a practical basis only one is notable. Has there been any coverage of Urbit outside the "...and he wanted to speak on Urbit but was blocked/churned up drama for being pro-slavery"? He has two elements, yes - only one of those elements, practically, has generated coverage, and it's not his code. Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't first invited to LambdaConf because of his political views, but because of the architecture (or deliberate lack of) for Urbit. I first encountered him through the discussion groups around Google App Engine and Amazon Lambda. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is nice, but still not coverage. There is (fortunately or unfortunately) a gap between being able to point to things people have done and a sort of general gestalt, and notability for those purposes. Ironholds (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there aren't RSes talking about Urbit as a significant thing. It has some techie buzz at the blog level because it's "interesting", in the special techie sense of the word "what the hell even is that" or "I ain't even mad, that's amazing". But it's had zero RS coverage actually about Urbit that I can find. Same for his career in WAP browser development, which I looked quite hard for and found almost no traces of. Blog buzz is not WP:RS material. Please produce coverage of these things in WP:RSes that would meet the "every fact has to be demonstrated notable" aspect of WP:BLP - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be hard-pressed to find significant coverage of "WAP browsers". Maybe Grandad would remember them? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

really? Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Two separate controversies means that BLP1E doesn' apply. The fact that both controversies are very similar doesn't alter that. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JoshuaZ: where's the RS coverage of the second controversy? Ironholds (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironholds: I take it JoshuaZ is referring to the Yarvin's role in the NRx/DE movement as the "second controversy". As far as RS coverage goes, how about Gere, Charlie (2015). "13Media". The Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory. 23 (1): 270–290. doi:10.1093/ywcct/mbv012. ISSN 1077-4254. which says "Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this kind of thinking can be found in what Nick Land calls the 'Dark Enlightenment', or, in the name coined by Mencius Moldbug (otherwise known as software engineer and quondam poet Curtis Yarvin), the 'Neoreactionary Movement'...". (Surely an academic journal published by OUP is a high quality RS.) SJK (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge he's not, no, he's referring to Yarvin being disinvited from a second conference for being, well, a bigot. Again, I'm talking about substantive coverage, not one-line mentions. Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom has noted a number of reliable sources covering the StrangeLoop dis-invitation controversy, and mentioning his role in Dark Enlightenment/NRx. RS exist on both topics, and I don't agree that RS covering NRx mention him in the form of "Fragmentary quotes or namedrops in general articles", since it is generally acknowledged that his blog is one of the instigators of the NRx movement. While the dis-invitation and NRx are related, they are separate things (one is a single event which received coverage in RS, the other is an ideological movement which has also received coverage in RS) so I don't think this is BLP1E. SJK (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another RS mentioning him (under his "Mencius Moldbug" psuedonym) is Charlton, Bruce G. (2010). "The cancer of bureaucracy: How it will destroy science, medicine, education; and eventually everything else". Medical Hypotheses. 74 (6): 961–965. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.11.038. ISSN 0306-9877.. That's an Elsevier journal, so again should be considered a good quality RS. SJK (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about – Dyga, Edwin. The future of Australian conservatism: Mainstream or sidestream? [online]. Quadrant, Vol. 58, No. 10, Oct 2014: 46-58. Availability: <http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=629207990052763;res=IELLCC> ISSN: 0033-5002. [cited 26 Mar 16]. – which discusses the “Neo-Reactionary” movement (chiefly popularised by the work of Curtis Yarvin. Quadrant (magazine) is noteworthy as arguably one of the major, if not the major, intellectual outlet of Australian conservatism. SJK (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SJK: can you quote the excerpts mentioning Yarvin from both, in their entirety? Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironholds: those articles are all paywalled, I don't have access to the full text, but I found them by searching for "Curtis Yarvin" or "Mencius Moldbug" on Google Scholar. But even supposing you are right that they are all "passing mentions", if a wide variety of RS independently mention someone (which is certainly the case here), I'd argue that makes him notable. They all mention him in the context of being one of the leaders/instigators of the DE/NRx movement (I don't believe any of them are talking about the Strange Loop or LambdaConf episodes), and hence they support the position that he is notable in that context. SJK (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironholds: Actually turns out the Quadrant magazine article is available here. To cite the relevant part fully it says (my emphasis) This reactionary trend has created fertile ground for a host of political sub-currents on the right which explicitly identify away from what has come to characterise mainline conservative politics. Indeed, “conservative” and “conservatism” as political descriptors are becoming increasingly unpopular within what John Derbyshire designates as a broader “Dissident Right”.[2] This is particularly true among the young members of what is sometimes also referred to as the “Orthosphere” (perhaps best exemplified by the work of James Kalb[3]) or the “Neo Reactionary” movement (chiefly popularised by the work of Curtis Yarvin[4]). Their critique has gone beyond that of paleoconservatives, who see the contest within the political establishment as a battle between two wings of liberalism: laissez faire, globalist neo-liberalism on the nominal Right and statist, neo-Marxist social democracy on the Left, both of which paleoconservatives view as corrosive to traditional society and the complex identities and liberties of its constituents.[5] Neo-reactionaries of the Orthosphere broadly agree with this assessment, however they seem to be forming a critique of modern liberalism that is both oppositional to the status quo as much as it also affirms a positive worldview centred on notions of traditional identity. Some of these notions involve a regionalist local patriotism and the celebration of men and women as distinct, complementary sexes. This “identitarian” view is favoured over the abstract universalism of utopian “one-worlders” who see everything traditionalists value as mere “social constructs” to be bureaucratically redesigned at will.–now, you might say that this is just a "passing reference"; but the article is arguing that NRx is one of the chief currents in the contemporary non-mainstream political right, and that Curtis Yarvin is its chief populariser. That's an assertion of notability right there. SJK (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue whatever you want but that doesn't match the notability guidelines. I'd agree, actually, that the Quadrant reference counts (although I disagree that "chief current in non-mainstream political right" is, in and of itself, notable. Ironholds (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why "chief current in the non-mainstream political right" would not be notable. WP covers non-mainstream politics, even extreme right or left politics. If something is so fringe that it doesn't even get any attention in reliable sources, then that would be non-notable. But something non-mainstream, even far from the mainstream, which receives attention in RS, is notable. SJK (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; it's the reliable sources that matter, not the importance of the terms used to describe the subject. See "in and of itself". We're in agreement ;). Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted papers in Medical Hypotheses prior to May 11, 2010 are not a reliable source for anything, because until that time, that journal was not peer-reviewed, and indeed was involved in a controversy for publishing AIDS denialism. That article was accepted on November 26, 2009 so it did not get peer-reviewed.--greenrd (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken but I'm not sure how it is relevant here. All I am suggesting we use that cite for is to establish notability of Curtis Yarvin, not to establish any factual claims about him or anything else. I don't see how presence or lack of peer review would ultimately change that, since I think peer review would be primarily about validating medical/scientific statements and research methodology, but mentioning Curtis Yarvin doesn't fall under either of those headings. SJK (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because the absence of peer review and the fact that it publishes AIDS denialism would suggest it's not a reliable source? Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we both seem to agree that Quadrant magazine is a reliable source for the purpose of establishing Curtis Yarvin's notability (but not for other purposes.) Well, Quadrant magazine is not peer reviewed, and while I'm not aware of it having published AIDS denialism, it has published climate change denialism aplenty. But, while that would be a problem if I was proposing to use it as a source for the claim that "climate change is a hoax", it isn't a problem if all one proposes to use it for is to establish Curtis Yarvin as notable. In the same way, if one was proposing to use Medical Hypothesises as a source for the claim that "AIDS is a hoax", its lack of peer review is a big problem; but, if all one wants to do with it is establish Curtis Yarvin's notability, I don't see how it is any less reliable for that purpose than Quadrant magazine is. Reliability is not an absolute, but context-dependent; a source might be woefully unreliable for some purposes, yet perfectly reliable for others. In general, the standards of reliability required of a source to establish notability are a lot less than the standards of reliability required to justify other assertions of fact. (And I don't think anyone here is trying to justify Yarvin's political views as correct – I certainly am not.) SJK (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tagged all the self-cites, blog cites and stuff without a third-party RS cite on the article. Don't be fooled by the little blue numbers - the sourcing on this article is absolutely terrible and not up to BLP standards. (I would have just removed them all if the AFD weren't in progress.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support trimming a lot of the self-cites. I don't think self-cites are necessarily inappropriate in a BLP, but this article has them to an excessive degree. I don't see doing so as necessarily pre-empting the AFD process. SJK (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At present @Carlylean: is just putting a lot of removed stuff back without discussion. I've asked them to come to the talk page to discuss better sourcing more - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a bit stub-y, but the LambdaConf controversy is being fairly widely discussed. The call for secondary citation for things like date of birth is a much higher standard than I've ever seen for any other article about a living person. Drcchutch (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen no actual RS coverage of the LambdaConf kerfuffle, and I've been looking. The most I've seen is some Hacker News threads. Are you claiming there are RSes that are up to WP:BLP on the topic? - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the from-the-horses-mouth version, from one of the LambdaConf organisers. http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion What is your and Ironholds' reason for excluding it going to be? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPREMOVE (a reason like "supports slavery" is a very strong claim that needs better-than-primary sourcing about a hopelessly obscure conference); WP:BLPSOURCES notes that "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Frankly the whole section should be removed barring the StrangeLoops cite to an actual verifiable third-party reliable source, insofar as an Auerbach opinion piece counts as one. You should know these two rules already, surely - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who's talking about slavery? I'm talking about LambdaConf and his exclusion, not making SYNTH judgements as to why. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're also pretty explicitly failing to assume good faith, so I'm gonna drop out of this discussion and go pack for my holiday. Have fun. Ironholds (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a WP:RS-quality source that backs up the assertion that LambdaConf and Yarvin's exclusion is notable? I note again I've been actively looking and haven't found a one as yet - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the best we can do to source coverage of the guy is a column reviewing a book which mentions him in passing and nothing else, there is not reason to have an article. The article is a mess and no sources exist to move it past that point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: when you say "the best we can do to source coverage of the guy is a column reviewing a book which mentions him in passing", which specific source are you referring to? SJK (talk) 07:31, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absinth3[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO in that there is not enough independent, in-depth third-party coverage in the media. The article is too dependent on unreliable sources such as websites with user-generated content. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any independent coverage (besides that sketchy NeonVice site, which I don't consider reliable). -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any coverage in reliable sources, so notability has not been established when judged against WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better which is unsurprising looking at this article. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing meeting WP:GNG appears to be self promotion / WP:TOOSOON - Arjayay (talk) 12:07, 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 07:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bateman[edit]

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

Marked as autobiographical/promotional since 2011. Refbombed with primary sources. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to Discworld Noir might be in order. czar 14:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 14:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 14:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I myself could not comfortable comprehend the article and it's frankly better to restart anew with better information and sources, questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found these - [10], a mention at page 346 in a book Affective Computing and Interaction: Psychological, Cognitive and Neuroscientific Perspectives: Psychological, Cognitive and Neuroscientific Perspectives, [11] stating a review of one of his books appeared in Make (magazine), and Amazon shows that another one of his books has been reviewed academically(?) - [12]; but he still probably needs more stronger sources (are any cited in the article non-primary?) to be deemed notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient secondary sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of academic impact to pass WP:PROF and insufficient evidence of reliable independent sources that cover the subject in-depth to pass WP:GNG. Although the article has many footnotes, I could not find one that was reliably published, independent of the subject and his employers, and about rather than by the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Charls[edit]

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

Reason Xtreme45211 (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:49, 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) SSTflyer 14:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in the Batman franchise[edit]

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

Total fringe garbage. This has always been a fringe point of view, and it's well known that Wikipedia doesn't represent a fringe point of view. Delete this garbage KoshVorlon 13:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC) KoshVorlon 13:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Gay interpretations or LGBT themes in American mainstream comics#DC or LGBT themes in comics#DC. There are some sources which discuss this, but not to the extent that a stand-alone article is warranted. It is already covered in those three articles to the extent it needs to be. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are plenty of relevant sources. [13], [14] and [15] are quickly found example of what seem to be quality scholarly discussions in academic sources. WP:FRINGE says:

To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability.

Which would seem to indicate that having this article is _exactly_ what we should be doing. It clearly meets WP:N. It may be that more context stating that this is a fringe theory needs to be in the article, but that's an editing problem, not a reason for deletion. Oh, there appear to be a LOT of sources on this. Many more than I'd have ever guessed. Hobit (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The state of the article could be improved upon (I think in particular its overall structure is due for a revamp), but the sources meet WP:GNG. This section was spun-off from Batman#Gay interpretations, which used to be much longer. Merging back into that parent article would be undesirable, given its length. It is to be expected under WP:SUMMARY that this topic will be covered in multiple broader-concept articles.--Trystan (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are quite enough sources in the article to establish notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The proposed deletion argument sounds like a matter of personal taste. There do exist reliable sources that support the article on its own. It is also a good way to keep this material in as a summary in the main Batman article.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:29, 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 07:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Heming[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA, WP:MANOTE, WP:NKICK, and WP:NBIO. Virtually unreferenced except for two very tiny bits from non-viewable local obit. Information I've checked so far doesn't even check out when fact-checked: the European Karate Championships were not held in Brussels, either in 1979 or in 1980. Subject retired by the time he was 22 and died at the age of 23, achieved nothing of consequence. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's an impressive and detailed article which is almost completely unsourced and fails to establish any notability or even if the subject actually existed. Shritwod (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above but to be fair the article does say it was the British version of the European Karate Championships that were held in Brussels. Of course that begs the question of how important that championship really was.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, PRehse. The article and facts still don't make much sense or check out. The tournament and title involved (the one he supposedly later lost to Van Damme) is given several different dates and several different names and several different locations in this article. In the Jean-Claude Van Damme article this thing is currently called "European Karate Federation Middleweight Championship"; when first input it was called "European Professional Karate Association's middleweight championship" [16]. In a 2003 book called Aestheticizing Violence, Or How to Do Things with Style, it says "When Van Damme arrived in America in 1981, he claimed that he was the European Professional Karate Association's Middleweight Champion. This claim was later disputed when the World Karate Association could find little or no evidence that he had ever competed, leading Black Belt Magazine to call Van Damme 'a complete fraud' ('Celebrity Bio')." [17] WTF? That's the trouble with all of these completely or largely uncited martial-arts articles and records -- they could be largely fabricated or at the very least full of errors. And by the way, we are not talking about the Great Britain version here, we are talking (according to the current Jean-Claude Van Damme article) about the championship tournament of the European Karate Federation, which did not take place in Brussels in either 1979 or 1980, so the data is incorrect on a number of levels in both the Van Damme and the Heming article. That's probably just for starters. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Unsourced and unverifiable claims of notability. X4n6 (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why delete it, I came here tonight to learn about the guy and his fight history as well as his death. As far as the discussion regarding the Championship. This fight was held December 26th, 1979 at the La Coupe Fancois Persoons Karate Tournament which was sanctioned by the Federation bruxelloise de Karate in Brussels, Belgium. Jean-Claude was a member of the Belgium team and his final match enabled his team to win the European Team Karate Championship. In Full-Contact karate, Jean-Claude knocked out England's Micheal Heming in 46 seconds of the first round. I was able to find it pretty easily notably imbd which appears to be a very factual article. The second link shows newspaper articles with photos and information about the tournament.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000241/bio

http://www.starsystemkickboxing.net/Pages/JeanClaudeVanDamme.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.228.99.44 (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It starting to look like you guys might be right. I've done a lot of looking into Heming. I cannot get confirmation that the fight against Van Damme actually occurred on December 26th like imbd claims and also Heming's Wikipedia page. His name is not actually listed in the newspaper clipping only members of the German team. Those clippings also do not confirm that Van Damme ever fought any full contact matches for the title (some more question marks). So in doubt I did reach out to Heming's last opponent (one of only a couple on his fight list I could confirm existed) and Dev Barrett did respond to me on Facebook. He said he had no recollection of fighting Heming in Coventry at all which is very odd since the fight was listed as for the European Championship. He seemed upset that such an entry was posted on Wikipedia and I believe he had it removed today. I responded and asked Sensei Barett if he ever heard of Heming or if he knew he actually existed. I also asked him about Keith O'Grady who Heming was suppose to have won the title against. I can find no info about that fight or O'Grady. Barett should know some of these guys because he fought over there during this time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.228.99.44 (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for any better notability and I doubt we're going to get a better article because of his death. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 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 07:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Longo[edit]

Article should definitely stay she is working alongside major Hollywood actors and actresses.

Article should stay. Relevence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlene Jenkins (talk • contribs) 03:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage except for a few articles in a local paper the Peterborough Examiner, and an interview by a local website here. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:ENT. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^^ This is actually wrong and the subject has been covered by international news sources. As you can see she has worked with several well known members of wikipedia and therefore is hugely relevant to entertainment. This article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Platter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There must not be much happening in Peterborough, or the Examiner has a fixation on her, but that apparently isn't shared by the rest of the media. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all of this is still questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER noting else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage across multiple reliable sources. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:40, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Iso Anderson[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 and WP:POLITICIAN. This is another young Nigerian local actor and politician struggling to gain international recognition through Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:48, 25 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£} 09:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:52, 25 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£} 09:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence he has been in any notable movies, let alone that any of his roles were significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 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 no consensus. Disregarding the confused contributions by APS (Full Auto), there's disagreement about whether coverage in reliable sources is sufficiently detailed, such that no consensus is arrived at and the article is kept by default. Sandstein 08:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beatnik (programming language)[edit]

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

Still just as non-notable as it was the last 5 times it was deleted. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail needed to establish notability under WP:GNG. Googling turns up (surprise!) nothing. Msnicki (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're laser sharp in formulating your opinion! Pretty much as always. Respect and appreciation! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Your first argument is invalid – this article has been rewritten and its deletion history has nothing to do to with its present notability. And Google or other search engines don't return nothing. I can talk about the outline of sources, but let's keep the discussion objective. I worked hard to improve this article to fit these criteria and it passed the Articles for Creation submission (@Hasteur and Anarchyte:). We have 3 independent sources on this, so I would recommend to Keep. Here's the list of present sources:

Web address	Summary
oocities.org	a mirror of GeoCities.com
esolangs.org	Esolang, which is the biggest resource about esoteric programming languages.
cliffle.com/esoterica/beatnik.html	It's a self-source, but needed only to address the topic's original announcement.
Bcher Gruppe, Esoterische Programmiersprache.	This book (it's in German) would be the most reliable source. It features the topics title ("Beatnik") in the subtitle.

So, oocities.org is a (copy of defunct) self-published material web host, cliffle.com is a personal website with COI, and esolangs.org is "the biggest resource about esoteric programming languages" (which, true as it may be, is not that impressive). As for the book, see Ruud's comment. I am thoroughly unimpressed; how is that supposed to pass WP:N or WP:NSOFT? Tigraan (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSOFT may not apply here, as it's technically a programming language, not a software. We should even consider creating a separate guideline for esoteric programming languages, I think. I doesn't matter if it's defunct or not, since we have Internet Archive. And self-source is not attributed to someone connected to the topic – it's a webpage of a l33t programming language and can act as an independent source. Besides, come on, this language is a proof-of-concept and won't have plenty of sources as it's not usable. There's no need to collect more sources claiming that this language exists. It qualifies to be an article, because it's an esoteric programming language, not because it's something big and useful. That's the nature of these languages. Esolang wiki would be the widest source in that comparison. It's rather independent, it's not a self-source or a poor quality statement. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NSOFT should apply to programming languages as well, but never mind: at any rate it does not get a free pass at WP:GNG simply because it is an EPL. If the "nature of those languages" is to lack serious sourcing, then their destiny is to not have WP articles. WP:ITEXISTS is not enough.

On the sources, that oocities.org is defunct is indeed irrelevant, but it is relevant that pretty much anyone could publish there with no control whatsoever - so WP:SPS applies. Tigraan (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some three other sources and emerged them into the article. While catseye.tc seems to be a little mention, those 2 others appears to be OK. They're listed below. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 17:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Web address	Summary
wiki.tcl.tk/12671	A Beatnik interpreter on official wiki of the Tcl programming language, seems independent and good quality.
search.cpan.org/~beatnik/Acme-Beatnik-0.02/Beatnik.pm	An another working implementation of the Beatnik language, which can act as an independent reference.
catseye.tc/node/Beatnik	This source is not wide, but it features yet another implementation of the Beatnik language, written in Python.

After these additions the article should be kept. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 20:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4 if applicable Merge the lead to Esoteric programming language#Examples and redirect there, per Ruud. While it was not really "deleted 5 times" (check the links), no RS turned up at search for notability. ~~I do not know if the page is "sufficiently identical" to its former version for the CSD to be applicable, but I suspect it is.~~ Tigraan (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striked per Rezonansowy, under, and obviously it can fit in the EPL examples if it has an RS. Tigraan (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment WP:G4 doesn't apply here. It's not a recreation. This article have been edited for a long time as a draft and then pushed to the mainspace through the AfC submission. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 17:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Tigraan (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That book mentioned above is by Books LLC: "Books LLC is an American publisher and a book sales club based in Memphis, Tennessee. Its primary work is collecting Wikipedia and Wikia articles and selling them as printed and downloadable books." —Ruud 13:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I found what appears to me to be one reliable source covering this language: Camille Paloque-Bergès (2009). Poétique des codes sur le réseau informatique. Archives contemporaines. p. 73. ISBN 978-2-914610-70-4.. Maybe one reliable source is not enough, but it's at least one. Unlike the German book cited above, this French book appears to be a genuine work not just some Books LLC reprint; the publisher Éditions des archives contemporaines is a serious French academic publishing house. SJK (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Added([18]) to the article. Thanks for a great research on it! --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 13:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happen to have any English sources? :)) APS (Full Auto) (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course we do accept sources in other languages, but I agree with what I think APS's real point, that this one strains credulity as satisfying the requirement in WP:GNG that sources offered in support of notability should address the subject in detail. It's impossible to tell from the link you offered whether the source even mentions the subject. Have you ever actually seen this source or any of the passages that discuss this subject? Or was this just something that turned up in a Google search and about which you have no better idea what it says than any of us do? I suspect it's the latter and that's just not enough to persuade me. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the Google books link I included. Look at the first paragraph on page 73. Even if you don't read French, it's obvious it is discussing this programming language Beatnik: Dans le registre de jeux logiques, le langage Beatnik passe pour le plus nonchalant: son programme Hello World! (ci-contre), ne fait qu'imprimer « Hi ». « Il possède un ensemble restreint de commandes, une syntaxe très relaxée, et on trouve des références à son vocabulaire dans n'importe quel magasin de jouets », proclame son inventeur Cliff L. Biffle. Le monde de la programmation s'intéresse de très près aux jeux logiques dits littérarires : cadavre exquis, anagrammes, palindromes, etc. Beatnik, lui, s'écrit comme on joue au Scrabble. Le choix des mots assigne des valeurs équivalentes au nombre de points calculés pour un mot dans un Scrabble. Le calcul de valeurs détermine quelle fonction est à exécuter. Chaque mot est une opération de calcul. It mentions its author (Cliff L. Biffle), it talks about how it is based on assigning Scrabble word points to words and using those numeric values to determine which function to execute (Le calcul de valeurs détermine quelle fonction est à exécuter). The following paragraph discusses Beatnik further. She goes on to compare Beatnik to other similar esoteric programming languages Chef, Ook, and Shakespeare. Paloque-Bergès' chief interest in this book is in programming as a form of poetry or literature (both programming generally, and certain specific forms of programming more specifically, including esoteric programming languages), and in that paragraph she sees motivation for Beatnik in the surrealist game of exquisite corpse (cadavre exquis). These sections (2.2.2.2 Le puzzle) and (2.2.2.3 Le jeu de langage (structured play)) are considering esoteric programming languages as forms of puzzles or language games (jeu de langage), and she sees Beatnik as demonstrating both aspects of esoteric programming languages. SJK (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed discussing the language (and others) though from a literary perspective (the book title is roughly "Poetry in computer programs"). Rough translation:

Among games of logic, the Beatnik language is thought to be the most casual. Its "hello world" program (reproduced here) just prints "hi". Its inventor Cliff L. Biffle claims that "It has a small set of commands, a loose syntax, and references to its vocabulary can be found in any toy shop". The programming world is closely interested in literary logic games: exquisite corpses, anagrams, palindroms, etc. Beatnik is coded as a Scrabble play: the choice of words gives values from the Scrabble scores for a word. Those values determine which function to run. Each word is a programming operation.

So it does discuss the topic in detail. One could argue the whole book is itself about a fringe subject so it should not count as much for notability as (say) a New York Times editorial, but it does count still. Tigraan (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE They come and go, come and go. Notable? No! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @APS (Full Auto): Your comments are nonconstructive. Please explain your objections in a more descriptive way. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 22:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~DELETE~~ It is constructive. You just don't like what you see but that's not my issue. I repeat: there's no point in brining in EVERY SINGLE programming language into Wikipedia. Programming is applied science so there's clear "watermark" or set of them: Either project / language is used to develop some reasonably large even niche application base *OR* it's extensively used for educational purpose *OR* it brings something very new distinguishing it from the other ones. This particular one has nothing like that. So I'm still there. DELETE. You may disagree, don't like my opinion and that's your right! Either way please provide arguments. Thank you! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You don't have to repeat your own vote, and moreover written uppercase. And it is notable as you can see above your last comments, that's why I asked you for some arguments. Well, I can provide some counterarguments, after I have read yours . There's no simple way to determine, if some lang is useful or not, if a large number of them are Turing complete. Some of them are usable to code a kernel, some are suitable for SQL queries. But when we talk about the esoteric, not just a programming languages, their purposes obviously change. As you can read in the Esoteric programming language § Cultural context of esolangs, esolangs can be considered as code art and code poetry. The Art is not always useful, it's just art and may impress someone, that's why it exists. And IMO Beatnik is interesting and unique enough, to deliver its existence to readers in that way. Programming languages consist of things with a wide variety of usage. And Wikipedia should cover this outline, not just the small part, which let you code a business app or a next game. And I agree with you that not every part of the Internet should be sucked into the Wikipedia as it's not a WP:WEBHOST, but this topic is significantly different, it's not a simple WP:COPYPASTE from some place on the Internet. Cheers! --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 21:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's still non-notable. 3 links in a modern Google-ish world means... %Subj% doesn't exist! Look, Wikipedia is not a dump so there's no point for anybody to bring in here any shiny trash he likes. IMHO of course. APS (Full Auto) (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I stroke the double !vote. BTW, that is an impressively precise set of criteria that you have here; personally, I will stick to WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. Tigraan (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks man! Just my opinion. "It seems that perfection is attained, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away." (c) ... Antoine de Saint Exupéry APS (Full Auto) (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the stand-alone article, but add as one of the examples at Esoteric programming language#Examples using the French book as a reference. Also, just give a simple example like the French book does, don't explain the syntax/semantics in too much detail (Piet is one of the examples that does this right). —Ruud 06:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Tigraan and Ruud Koot: But if we merge this article into Esoteric programming language, it could become {{Too long}}. I know that it won't exceed the WP:SIZERULE, but code samples don't count in the prose-size and they appears often in programming-related articles. There's nothing wrong with leaving good-referenced stubs here, IMO.
  - If you trim the article down to about the size of the section in Poétique des codes sur le réseau informatique, there should be no length issues. Also note that the book manages to use a much smaller example than the Wikipedia article does. Short overviews are infinitely more useful than simply copying and pasting the complete specification of the syntax and semantics of a language into a Wikipedia article. We're an encyclopedia, not the technical appendix of a language specification. —Ruud 22:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the code sample (which is needed to depict the language) would be useless without an explanation what it actually does. Is no conflict between the encyclopedia definition and to have a section explaining the markup. Of course they should not be written WP:Too technical, as everything should be understandable for every reader. See for example: C++ and its Operators in C and C++. That's the style of that articles. Articles about programming languages, esoteric or not in this case, are themselves technical – without it, these articles couldn't provide an appropriate level of topic coverage. Keeping it in this form seems to fit those criteria. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - An explanation of what the example does can be given in prose. There is no need for the extensive tables. This language is not notable in and of itself, but only as a form of code-as-art. The manner in which we cover this topic should reflect that. —Ruud 23:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The important word is "could" - maybe, but why not try? IMO, leaving a couple of permastubs does not hurt, but having one good overview is better, content-wise. So it really depends on whether there is a suitable target - and in this case, there is. Tigraan (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in the Éditions des archives contemporaines book cited by SJK. The book is covered in detail. I agree with Rezonansowy that merge/redirect to Esoteric programming language#Examples is a suboptimal way of presenting the material because it would require condensing the current article, which presents the material well.
Cunard (talk) 07:47, 2 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 keep. Cunard seems to have been persuasive enough to convince others. v/r - T P 07:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Clark (Tom Clancy character)[edit]

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

A fictional character with little real-world notability, only in-universe notability and as such is not a suitable topic for a standalone article. Also no cited source WP:V verifies the WP:GNG notability of this fictional character. AadaamS (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sources for wider notability; this should be transwikied to http://tomclancy.wikia.com/wiki/Tom_Clancy_Wiki --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikify - per Vipinhari. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:BKD in addition to Jack Ryan (character) as precedent. Has appeared in multiple books and films. While it's written from primarily a in-universe prespective, Deletion is not cleanup. I see that AadaamS has decided to pick on this and Domingo Chavez for deletion, two of the better written biographies in the Ryanverse as compared to Robby Jackson and Ed Kealty Hasteur (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The quality of writing in the article is not in dispute, it is the notability of its subject. AadaamS (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like many Wikipedia articles with parenthesis in the title, the default search tools do not work well. Fixing them by hand yeilds this, which shows a lot of commentary about the multiple on-screen portrayals of this character. Unless the nominator is prepared to argue that no more than one of these mentions constitutes nontrivial, independent reliable secondary sourcing (and that's a pretty high bar), I think we can agree that the article as currently written is notable but could sure stand to make use of some of these sources. Jclemens (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am prepared to argue that all of the TC characters should be merged to a single new article, List of Tom Clancy characters or List of Ryanverse characters. Those sources indicate notability for the actors, the TV shows but unless analysing the character is the main topic of the article, they don't count towards establishing the notability of the character itself. Notability of an actor such as Harrison Ford isn't inherited by the character he portrays. AadaamS (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That merger would be a less unwelcome outcome, and pretty much moots the need for an AfD, but I disagree that the article is not sufficiently notable. Any time a reliable source talks about an actor playing a character, it contributes to both the notability of the actor AND that of the character portrayed. In general, the bar for notability for actors under the GNG is quite a bit lower, because an actor will play multiple roles per year, while a fictional character is unusual if there are more than two separate portrayals which receive media attention. Thus, I continue to believe that the fictional character John Clark is notable, as are the actors who have portrayed it. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where does the GNG say that actors have a lower bar for GNG notability? Please post a link to the relevant section.AadaamS (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nowhere. I should have said notability (2-3 independent, non-trivial RS) is easier to achieve for actors than characters because actors portray many characters while a character often is portrayed only once. Does that help? Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        My interpretation of WP:TRIVIALMENTION is that articles which name the actor to portray a role doesn't count towards establishing GNG because the main subject of such an article is the casting of a film, not the character itself. An article which has a character as the main subject would discuss the actions, evolution, impact or history of the character. AadaamS (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party reliable sources cited to indicate notability. Extensive in-universe content requires deletion, see WP:WAF. Sandstein 08:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. As mentioned in Domingo Chavez, BKD, referenced above, explicitly says, While a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book—if anything that should be a rationale for merge. But without a single reliable, secondary source in this article asserting the character's notability, there is nothing but plot detail to merge. I'm amenable to a merge target, if a good one exists, but there is no policy-backed rationale for keeping this article separate in any form. I'd be opposed to a separate character list as well unless there are sources that discuss the characters as a separate and distinct concept from the book. Otherwise they should be summarized and covered adequately within a character section of the main article. czar 17:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ryanverse now that a suitable series article exists. The character's WP coverage should be proportional to its RS coverage and can spin out summary style. While Clark would be the most likely candidate to spin out, I don't see enough coverage in his own context to justify a dedicated article. If Cunard's sources warrant a full Development and Reception sections for the character (and right now, I'm skeptical) after that expansion, I'd have no opposition to Clark's own article. czar 11:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Kelly, Ed (1998-08-16). "Tom Clancy's Next Hero". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2016-04-04. Retrieved 2016-04-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Millions of fans of Tom Clancy's thrillers will cheer publication of his "Rainbow Six" because it offers a second principal character to share marquee status with his longtime hero Jack Ryan.
  The new principal arrival is John Clark, only a supporting character in earlier Ryan stories, "The Cardinal of the Kremlin," "Clear and Present Danger" and "Without Remorse." But Clark, described as Jack Ryan's "alter ego" and "Dark Side," gets top billing in "Rainbow Six."
  Clark, a product of the U.S. military establishment, is now director of a London-based international special operations strike force called the Rainbow Unit, dedicated to thwarting terrorism by whatever means necessary. Diplomacy may have worked well for Ryan, but Clark and his buddies provide "the hammer." They believe violence and deadly force are the deterrents for terrorism.
  This article provides a detailed biographical background about John Clark. It notes that he was "only a supporting character" in three previous Ryan books. It contrasts Clark with Tom Clancy's previous hero, Jack Ryan, by noting that Clancy called him Ryan's "alter ego" and "Dark Side". It further details the contrast by saying that whereas Ryan used diplomacy, Clark uses "the hammer" through "violent and deadly force" to "dete[r]" terrorists.
  The article does a further character contrast by noting that John Clark has "rougher edges" than Jack Ryan and that the "steely" Clark does not have Ryan's "full dimensions".
  The article calls Ryan "a new American hero for the cusp of the new geopolitical millennium" and "another unusual and timely creation: an American hero for the paranoid present".
  This is very substantial analysis of the character.
2. Bargreen, Melinda (1998-08-02). "An Action-Packed Summer Read -- Tom Clancy's Latest Storms The Shores". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2016-04-04. Retrieved 2016-04-04.
  The article notes:
  
  The main hero here is John Clark, the ex-Navy SEAL who went ballistic in an earlier Clancy novel, "Without Remorse," and whom Clancy has called "the dark side" of his primary hero, Jack Ryan.
  ...
  Clark is quite a fellow, too. He has more decorations than the White House Christmas tree: Navy Cross, Silver Star with a repeat cluster, Bronze Star with Combat-V and three repeats, three Purple Hearts, et al. He's the hero of many covert international missions in which the Free World's bacon was definitively saved.
  He may be pushing 60, but Clark can still run with the big dogs, and he still gets that dangerous look on his face that makes smart people not want to mess with him.
  This material provides significant coverage about John Clark's biography.
  The author further draws a parallel between the aging author Tom Clancy and the aging main character John Clark who is "pushing 60":
  About the only thing that has changed is that there are many more ruminations on how little fun it is to get old, especially for an action guy. Clark is well into middle age, like his creator, and "Rainbow Six" is peppered with mordant observations about looking at "the next major milestone on his personal road to death (with) the number sixty on it."
3. Cross, Howard (1998-09-13). "Rich Characters Mark Clancy Techno-Thriller". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2016-04-04. Retrieved 2016-04-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Fans of Tom Clancy were first introduced to the heroic character of John Clark in Cardinal of the Kremlin, a novel of international intrigue that primarily revolved around Clancy's favorite character, Jack Ryan. In Cardinal, Clark had a small role, certainly nothing auspicious enough to suggest that he would become Clancy's second-favorite fictional character. Clark again appeared in tandem with Jack Ryan in the succeeding novels Clear and Present Danger and The Sum of All Fears. In each case, Clark's role was larger, practically on a level with Ryan himself, with Clark specializing in intelligence and covert operations. Then Clancy wrote a novel unlike any other he had penned before -- Without Remorse -- set in Baltimore in 1969, dealing with a man named John Kelley, a man who fights his own private drug war, who ultimately takes on the name John Clark and begins a new life in the intelligence field. This novel, which dealt with the issue of vigilante justice, was solely about Clark and his background.
  This article discusses heroic character John Clark's growing role in author Tom Clancy's successive books.
4. Levins, Harry (1993-08-01). "Clancy Looks Back in a Familiar Style". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2016-04-04. Retrieved 2016-04-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Clancy's regular readers may recall Clark as the grimly efficient CIA agent who has aided Ryan in three earlier novels. "Without Remorse" tells us who John Clark really is.
  He's a cliche, actually. As the book opens, Clark lives as a recluse, a former Navy commando who saw too much combat and wants only to get away from the world. As is the case in any number of thrillers that star reclusive trained killers, the world refuses to go away.
  In this book, the world presents Clark with two sets of problems: a heroin ring in Baltimore that murders his newfound lady friend, and a secret POW camp in North Vietnam. Clark responds by turning into two more cliches: Charles Bronson in those vigilante movies, and Sylvester Stallone in those Rambo movies.
  The article provides analysis of Tom Clancy character John Clark by saying that he is a "recluse" who has seen "too much combat and wants only to get away from the world". The article provides further analysis by comparing John Clark to Charles Bronson in "vigilante movies" and Sylvester Stallone in "Rambo movies".
5. Johnson, Alan (1998-08-03). "Cold War's Over, But Clancy Finds Evil Hiding Behind Trees". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2016-04-04. Retrieved 2016-04-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Clancy reprises one of his favorite heroes, ex-Navy SEAL and CIA operative John Clark, master of macho military machinations. Clancy previously dispatched Clark to battle drug lords in Colombia,warlords in Japan and nuclear terrorists in the United States.
  In this book, an aging but still active Clark is assigned to head Rainbow, an international counter-terrorism task force based in Hereford, England. Clark, designated "Rainbow Six," has mixed feelings about the assignment, not because he doesn't find the challenge of combating terrorism compelling, but because as an action figure with 30 years in the field, he regards his duties as largely administrative he's a desk jockey doing paperwork "any self-respecting accountant would have rejected."
  The article notes that John Clark is one of author Tom Clancy's "favorite heroes" and provides significant biographical background about the subject.
6. Signor, Randy Michael (1998-08-02). "A thrill ride of a read - Clancy's latest keeps empire alive". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2016-04-04. Retrieved 2016-04-04.
  The article notes:
  
  There's much that is attractive about Clancy's books. Unlike the characters in most comic books, for instance, Clancy's heroes age in real time. Jack Ryan has, over the years, gone from naval officer to CIA spook to president; in this book, he is so far out of the story that his name is never uttered_he is just referred to as "the President." John Clark, who has starred in several other Clancy novels, often with Ryan, is here easing into the shadows as well, and his young protege Domingo Chavez is clearly being groomed to star on his own in future novels. I think that's kinda cool. It adds to the sense of verisimilitude that Clancy depends upon to captivate his readers.
  The article discusses how in Rainbow Six, John Clark is being "eas[ed] into the shadows" as a young protege is "being groomed".
7. James, W.R. (1993-08-01). "Clancy Gives Jack Ryan a Vacation". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-04-04. Retrieved 2016-04-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Jim Kelly, a k a John Clark, is home from the war, trying the best he can to forget the nightmare called Vietnam. He's making good money as a demolition expert for an oil company and his wife, Tish, is three months pregnant. Things are pretty good -- until a runaway truck ends her life and his hope. "There was nothing else to be done for a man who would have accepted hell rather than this, because he'd seen hell. But there was more than one hell, and he hadn't seen them all quite yet."
  The article provides substantial biographical background about John Clark's earlier life.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow John Clark to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Secondary information notes: "Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work:".
One example is "the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative". Sources 1 and 3 in particular describe John Clark's increasing prominence as a character over Tom Clancy's successive novels.
Another example is "critical analysis of the work of fiction, including discussion of themes, style, motifs and genre". Source 1 in particular provides critical analysis of John Clark.
Cunard (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Notability notes:
All fictional topics must meet the notability guidelines to warrant articles specifically about them. As mentioned earlier, the rule of thumb is that if the topic is sufficiently notable, secondary sources will be available and will ideally be included on article creation.
The sources I've provided here show that the subject passes the notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the first several and they're book reviews: they describe the book's main character in the context of the book. Other characters are mentioned in this fashion too—if anything, based on these sources, this character would deserve a section on a page of recurring Clancy characters. czar 05:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a page called Ryanverse, but it was redirected to Jack Ryan (character) in January 2010. Here is a link to the last version before the redirect. I would support selective merging/redirecting Domingo Chavez (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domingo Chavez), Robby Jackson (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robby Jackson), and Ed Kealty (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Kealty) to a page like Ryanverse. But regarding the John Clark page, there probably is enough material for a standalone page although a merge to a characters page is also possible.

Cunard (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored Ryanverse and added three sources. Pinging AadaamS (talk · contribs), Piotrus (talk · contribs), Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs), Hasteur (talk · contribs), Jclemens (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), and Czar (talk · contribs).

I believe that John Clark (Tom Clancy character) has enough coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article. I've done cursory searches on Domingo Chavez (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domingo Chavez), Robby Jackson (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robby Jackson), and Ed Kealty (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Kealty) and haven't found the same depth of coverage as John Clark, so I've supported merge/redirecting them for now to Ryanverse without prejudice against spinning them out again if significant coverage in sources surface.

Cunard (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources you listed, I think #1 an #7 truly counts towards establishing GNG of the character, the others are book reviews where the main character is described but not really discussed in depth. So I think this character is better off as a section in the Ryanverse article. As far as I can see, this character still has mostly in-universe notability, see WP:NFICT: Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details. So I think this should be merged to Ryanverse and this article redirected there. AadaamS (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed are mostly book reviews and that is an indicator that this character lacks notability which is independent of Ryanverse or the books in which this character appears. AadaamS (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard makes a compelling argument that this character is notable enough for a standalone article. clpo13_(talk) 06:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been successfully pinged. The sources found by Cunard should compel every last good faith contributor to acknowledge the notability of the character. If any do not revisit the discussion, that should be taken as evidence that they've declined to continue participation and their pre-Cunard !votes be struck as rendered irrelevant. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard's argument shows that this character is notable enough to have it's own article, and has received significant independent coverage — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:14, 8 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. Sandstein 08:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines-South Korea 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup bid[edit]

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

Reason 'Bold text'Lukewalker76 (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC) The bid is not been confirmed yet. and WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A CRYSTAL BALL!!!!![reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bid isn't confirmed yet as stated. No published sources from the SMB or Korean Basketball Federation of a formal launching of the bid (not just mere proposals, or considering to this or that) to use as citation. Even if the bid is confirmed, the FIBA Bidding process for the 2023 FIBA World Cup is yet to officially begin.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undue fork of 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup. Article is completely unsourced, so no value in merging.—Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Undue fork of 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup. I believe that this information should not be published until there is confirmation of any reliable source, since publishing something baseless and can create false hopes should not publish information randomly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feryeah13 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 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. Sandstein 08:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rihito Takarai[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, even though works appear on MADB and ANN and are published by Digital Manga in English, none are Wikipedia-notable (no blue links). JA Wikipedia also shows no blue links to individual works. If Seven Days and others chart on Oricon lists, then please cite that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What I have found:
1. Rihito Takarai is credited for the movie Seven Days ([19]), and the movie charted on Oricon: DVD ([20]), Blu-ray Disc ([21]), Making-of ([22]).
2. Ten Count is completely Rihito Takarai's work, including the story. "Ten Count 2" Drama CD charted on Oricon CD Albums Chart very high, at no. 15 ([23], [24]). It was also at no. 10 in the monthly Anime CD Chart ([25]). --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But did Seven Days manga chart in Oricon? The anime is an adaptation. Unless she created original material for the anime and the live-action film, what her adaptations rank does not matter. Same with Ten Count and its drama CD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. No third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to adequately demonstrate that this person satisfies the basic notability guidelines. Does appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --DAJF (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see significant coverage in Google News: [26]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best actually because this, all in all, is still questionably better for the applicable notability. Draft and Userfy at best if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This can always be drafted/userfied if requested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 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. Sandstein 08:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Barra[edit]

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

References consist of WP:TRIVIAL mentions or are press releases, which are not independent of the subject. Article requires multiple independent reliable sources which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. Until this requirements has been met, I recommend deletion of this article. KDS4444^Talk 16:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is this is clearly applicable for deletion, with the company only being a newly founded one so he being a CEO of that is not convincing enough for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and corrected both WP:TRIVIAL mentions and added some independent reliable sources (though in Italian). Fede72no Fede72no 12:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as an independent editor, it seems like the sources in the article at least demonstrate some notability in the (Italian) business world. However, the article requires an obvious rewrite/cleanup, considering the article contains quotes in format that obviously gives undue weight to them/their subject. I think the article should be kept if some more viewpoints on the subject can be found and the tone can be changed to be less promotional-sounding. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 14:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned sentence with possible promotional-sounding tone. Added another reference. Fede72no Fede72no 17:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look over the article to see what has changed since I nominated it for deletion. So far, what I see has not convinced me of this person's real-world notability: an article which, for example, contains a list of "corporate assignments" sounds like— and is, mostly— a résumé. Which is not what Wikipedia is about. It is not only a matter of tone (which continues to be a problem), it is a matter of content— this article still doesn't look like it has enough of the latter to qualify the subject as notable. KDS4444^Talk 13:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former assignements deleted since not significant for article's context. Fede72no Fede72no 17:35, 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 07:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the mill Italian businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Lamb[edit]

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

I can find mention to some articles, here, but I can't find a charting by them. Wikipedia Facebook and MySpace account for most of the info I can find. Murry1975 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They don't need to have charted to be notable. They have an entry in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music ([27]), which should be enough on its own, and with additional coverage from Kerrang! and Hot Press ([28]), notability isn't really in doubt here. --Michig (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They need multiple in depth sources to be notable. Do reviews of albums count? Albums that weren't released until after they split, or didn't chart? Right now nothing is a reliable source in the article, they never had a hit, and gave interviews on release of these records. A very close call in my opinion, the The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, makes it so, not the Kerrang or Hot Press interviews. Murry1975 (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reviews count. And they received quite a bit of print coverage that isn't online. The Hot Press one is a review, not an interview. --Michig (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now and Draft and Userfy if needed as all of this is still questionably solid for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft and Userfy? You're not making much sense here. --Michig (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOEFFORT. Also note that topic notability is not based upon whether or not articles are improved. See also WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pet Lamb also recorded 2 Peel sessions for the BBC ([29]). --Michig (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)..a Melody Maker review, and further coverage is reproduced here and here - probably not all reliable sources, but certainly enough are. --Michig (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wouldn't place this band at the top of my playlist, nor will I ever listen to any of their recordings, but the sources are reliable (some are indeed highly reliable); therefore, their notability is valid for an encyclopedic entry in Wikipedia. However, someone should take the time to add those reliable sources to the article; otherwise, other good faith AFD requests may come up in the future.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:12, 2 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 Bratz discography. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 21:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz: Pampered Petz (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Album has zero notability and no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Attempts to redirect have been reverted, but really this article has no reason to exist. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non notable and unsourced. A lot of Bratz songs have articles and they should be deleted too. Clearly someone is obsessed with Bratz or is doing this for advertisement.*Treker (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bratz discography. Album is non-notable. The editor who created this is on a one-person campaign to flood Wikipedia with Bratz fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this seems applicable, perhaps no serious needs for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per above. Insert CleverPhrase Here 11:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 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. Sandstein 07:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Le Lisp[edit]

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

This article seems mostly unmaintained and there is no claims to notability or significance of any kind. H.dryad (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit articles and then propose to delete them. You could have done some research and make the LeLisp article relevant. Sources for you:

http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/le_lisp

It is even available:

http://christian.jullien.free.fr/lelisp/

Joswig (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joswig, I don't see anything in your above links that would amount to more than WP:ITEXISTS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is nothing wrong in editing articles and proposing deletion (unless the edit significantly degrades the article in an attempt to make the subject look unnotable or otherwise). (And FWIW, the only edit by H.dryad that is not AfD-related is this one). Tigraan (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it is mentioned in reliable sources. See for instance:

J. Chailloux, M. Devin, and J.M. Hullot: LeLisp a Portable and Efficient Lisp System. In Conference Record of the 1984 ACM symposium on LISP and Functional Programming, p. 113-123, ACM, Austin, Texas, 5-8 August 1984.
Luis Argüelles Méndez (22 October 2015). A Practical Introduction to Fuzzy Logic using LISP. Springer. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-3-319-23186-0.
Fred Long (28 November 1990). Software Engineering Environments: International Workshop on Environments, Chinon, France, September 18-20, 1989. Proceedings. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 289. ISBN 978-3-540-53452-5.
Gian Piero Zarri (18 May 2014). Operational Expert System Applications in Europe. Elsevier Science. pp. 36–. ISBN 978-1-4831-4491-7.

Based on the above, I think it is notable as an implementation/dialect of Lisp, particularly popular in the 1980s through early 1990s in Europe. As Méndez p. 7 notes, Le Lisp is historically notable as one of the first Lisp implementations on the IBM PC, and also one of the earlier Lisp implementations to be developed in Europe. SJK (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as this seems enough to accept as an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, preferably merge once a suitable target has been created or found (as a permastub): The above sources given barely scrape through significant coverage, as well as the papers that cite the original article on this dialect (many cover it as part of papers about the "standardization" of Lisp (see also Common Lisp)). However, given that programming language design is undercovered by outside sources (like other more obscure scientific topics), it probably is weakly notable on a relative scale, although as a permastub, should be merged as soon as possible to prevent it from becoming indefinitely orphaned. Esquivalience ^t 19:22, 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 speedily deleted by User:Kudpung under criterion G5. "Pepper" @ 21:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carp scale[edit]

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

"Carp scale" renders 0 online result about him beyond WP. Page is an orphan and only links to 1 page (to a TV cartoon that inspired his pen name), no notability is shown, not to mention the Chinglish. Despite plenty of edits, the creator User:Iswnw is essentially a WP:SPA. The Chinese and Min Nan pages were all similarly created this month by a WP:SPA, what a coincidence. Timmyshin (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spam or gibberish? That is the question but the answer is a plain delete --Vituzzu (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes no credible claim to passing any Wikipedia inclusion criterion, but rather looks to be based on the classic fallacy that anybody who exists at all is automatically entitled to have an article on here. Note also that the creator also created duplicate versions at the titles Carps scales and Carps scale; both of them have now been redirected to this one, but it was worth mentioning because they (as well as Carp scales, at which this page was originally created before being moved to the current title) will have to be deleted as well. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three comments: first the notability question might not matter since this is apparently a case of G5 speedy deletion (created by a blocked user in defiance of the block). As for the notability, I'd like to make sure that the links currently in the article are too weak to meet WP:GNG but this would require the help of a Chinese speaker. (I did ask for help at WP:CHINA.) Finally, if this article is deleted on grounds of notability, then it probably also should be deleted on zh.wiki and zh-min-nan.wiki. Pichpich (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the zh.wiki and zh-min-nan pages both need to be deleted, but these wikis are poorly patrolled (does zh-min-nan even have patrollers/admins?) The zh.wiki page was created by a User:Dsfsswec, notice it was already discovered that he has used 28 socks on zh.wiki (zh:Category:Dsfsswec的維基用戶分身) for this purpose, and if I understand his Chinglish correctly at User_talk:322121dwss (undoubtedly another of his socks in spite of his denial): "I will return as much as they can delete" and "I will continue my sabotage", seems that the socks won't stop on en.wiki either. Timmyshin (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Cross-wiki spammer and vandal. True to his word, he is continuing his sabotage. (Odwxd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)).-Mys_721tx (talk) 21:09, 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 redirect to Nintendo#2004–2011: Nintendo DS and Wii. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Es (operating system)[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) I'd support a redirect to its most significant mention (Nintendo#2004.E2.80.932011:_Nintendo_DS_and_Wii), as has been reverted twice. czar 23:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect and semi-lock as this is still questionable for its own article but may be enough to be connected to Nintendo's article. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a real Nintendo research project / open source project. But it has received little to no attention in the research literature. While a literature search will find many references to an ES operating system, they appear to all be mentions of the operating system of the Soviet ES EVM mainframe series and not this Nintendo research project. Research projects that don't receive attention in the peer reviewed literature are by that fact non-notable. It has received a small quantity of press attention (no doubt drawn by the fact that the company doing the research is Nintendo – if the same project was undertaken at another company it is likely the press would have cared far less), but I don't think that is sufficient for notability. I haven't seen any evidence this research has made any particularly original contributions to operating systems research, nor have I seen any evidence that Nintendo has used the results of this research in their products. SJK (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 08:27, 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 06:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and SwisterTwister. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:59, 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 07:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C-Drone-Defect[edit]

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

I came across this via an unfinished AfD for the performer's debut album, Neural Dysorder Syndrome. I was just going to redirect the article here, but I noticed a lack of sourcing in the article. A search brings up nothing to show that this performer is notable enough for an article at this point in time.

I'm nominating this and the album for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I've been able to find a few album reviews for Dystopia: Reflections of Darkness, Brutal Resonance, Soundsphere, Musik Reviews, Chain DLK, Grave Concerns. The first site is an RS, I believe, the second seems borderline, and the rest don't look too good. I'm not willing to push to keep based on that flimsy sourcing. If someone else digs up something better, I might switch to keep. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can find good, strong sourcing I'm open to a keep as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best as I would've considered Keep because of the reviews regardless of closely examination but this is still questionable and my searches found nothing better. Draft if needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yali Dream Creations[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking independent reliable sources. The article has been deleted four times: three times under WP:A7, one of which was also WP:G11, and once under WP:PROD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; excluding the massive amount of Hindi sources, here are three western sources [30], [31], and [32] all of which gives the works of the company significant coverage. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Graeme Bartlett requesting restore of full history and talk page for the purpose of the debate there may be a better version saved in the history. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:52, 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 05:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Valoem. Insert CleverPhrase Here 11:05, 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matousec[edit]

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

References used in the article either don't cover the subject or are merely passing mentions. Unable to locate any additional reliable sources which cover the subject. There are a few forum threads discussing the merits of the website's reviews, but otherwise there's nothing. Elaenia (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I've been aware of Matousec software firewall test about about 10 years, because I found it when I first started looking for a replacement for Norton Internet Security months before Windows Vista was released. Their test is kind of unique. I'm kind of amazed that more people aren't aware of their Windows software firewall test, but I think it comes down to this group not flooding the internet with spam links like some groups do. I found a link in a few minutes of searching. I agree this article need improvement, especially better references, but it shouldn't be deleted. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website you've cited as an indicator of notability doesn't appear to fit the guidelines for being a reliable source. Looking at links to it on Wikipedia, it seems to be mostly a spam blog constantly outputting articles along the lines of "best MP3 player software", "best free file archiver", etc. typical blog spam. In terms of coverage by reliable sources, I've been unable to find any despite extensive searching. There are a few passing mentions, but nothing covering the topic in-depth. Elaenia (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as however sourced and informative this article may be, it's still questionably better and I'm not finding anything convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References are low quality. I went looking for some better quality references and couldn't find any. (The closest I could find was a Masters Thesis; I don't think Masters Thesis generally count as RS though.) SJK (talk) 02:54, 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. Deleting both. MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French Kiss (Estelle Desanges album)[edit]

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

Unsourced articles about 2 nonnotable albums since created in 2007. Zero improvement or suggestion of notability nearly 9 years later. Only ghits found are online music retailers and wiki-mirror sites. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Debut album by famous French artist and erotic performer, Estelle Desanges. Hektor (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) It has no sources. I could not find coverage regarding these albums. 2) These are not albums BY Estelle Desanges; they are compilation albums in which she may have had a hand in selecting the songs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Nothing found that would justify an article. --Michig (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per above. Insert CleverPhrase Here 11:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not yet anything suggesting a solidly independent article, currently questionable thus unlikely keepable. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 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 07:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Memories on the Return of Pearl Princess[edit]

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

WP:OR about 1 Chinese TV series' reception in the Philippines, not encyclopedic. Whatever can be salvaged from this essay needs to be merged to the My Fair Princess article, if anyone has the time to do it. Timmyshin (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly not an acceptable article and is best deleted and ever restarted if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a completely unsourced essay and someone's personal reflections on the show's popularity. I'd support a snow close, since I doubt seriously that this would end any other way. I don't see where any of the info could be merged, since none of it is sourced and much of it is based on the author's personal opinions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Simon Jones[edit]

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

BLP about an actor who doesn't seem to have had any major roles or received significant coverage. Unsourced bar an IMDB link since it was created in 2006. Michig (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Google, Guardian) are returning up nothing to add to IMdB's list of what appear to be minor parts. Fails WP:NACTOR and broader biographical criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR. Insert CleverPhrase Here 11:27, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Barth[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, not even a credible claim of significance in the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all of this is questionable for his better own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person exists but seems not to be notable. The only reference in the article mentions him only in passing, and I was unable to find anything better. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Insert CleverPhrase Here 11:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mehrabiyan[edit]

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

Not notable person. Fails WP:GNG. The page about his organisation is also created by the same user recently. Greek Legend (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being CEO of some random web hosting company does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 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 17:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullatif Ghazi Abdullah[edit]

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

Not notable. Sources are non-RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greek Legend (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the subject might be notable but the current article is poorly sourced, it should be moved to drafts and improved.Masterofroks (talk) 12:45, 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. Borderline, as the keeps look rather thin to me, but we don't quite have consensus. Sandstein 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara Public School[edit]

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

Article about a former school turned B&B, making and sourcing no strong claim of notability under our inclusion standards for buildings. The "sources" here are a deadlinked page on a local tourism directory, a biographical sketch of a former principal of the school on the personal web page of one of her own descendants, and a photo of a historical plaque devoted to that same principal — but the school doesn't inherit notability just because it once had a principal who might be notable herself, local tourism directories don't assist notability even if the links are actually still alive, and there's no strong evidence that either the school or the B&B has ever been the subject of enough reliable source coverage in its own right to be eligible for an article. For added bonus, this was created by an editor with a direct conflict of interest. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:COI, and WP:INHERIT, as was mentioned by the nominator. An article about a business with no notability masquerading as an article about a public school with no notability. A Google search turns up more results concerning the public schools in Niagara, Wisconsin than it does this particular building. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added info about how it is a contributing building in the 2004-declared Niagara-on-the-Lake National Historic Site of Canada. It is a significant building which, by multiple criteria, conforms to the defining historic and architectural character of the district. Unfortunately the Canadian Register of Historic Places are not nearly as well covered yet in Wikipedia as the corresponding U.S. historic sites, so this importance wasn't clear (and should be developed in the article, using registration documentation equivalent to that of U.S. historic sites, but not yet available on-line). I doubt anything about the principal is very important; the building's architecture and preservation are more significant is my guess. There are many articles in Wikipedia about B&B's/buildings listed on the U.S. historic sites list; being a B&B is part of how it has been possible for these buildings to be preserved. The B&B's get a free external link from their Wikipedia article, not much reward for all the work that has gone into their preservation and sharing of their history. --doncram 04:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a registered historic building would be an important notability claim, doncram, but I can't see where the building is mentioned in the source you have cited for these edits. Could you clarify? I don't see how you can justify that material about the building's architecture if the building is not mentioned in the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is informed interpretation of the source which describes the historic district. From experience working on many U.S. historic district and other historic site articles, and some Canadian ones, I have learned a lot. By its address and Google maps I determine that the building is within the historic district's area, on the slope from Front St. up about four blocks. It is fairly common that a local person would use a local name such as "Old Town" for the district, while the name chosen for the historic district is set from a higher perspective, hence the actual district name is "Niagara-on-the-Lake". Also Google Street view for this location shows the building clearly. It is not original research to observe from the street view that this building is indeed a 2-story building with a central doorway and employing a recognizable architectural style, etc. It was already in the article that the building dates from 1859, which is the last year of the date-range defined for buildings deemed to contribute to the historic character of the district (i.e. contributing buildings) and it is a reasonable guess (as an aside here, not put into the article) that the date-range was chosen to include this specific building. If this were just a few miles away across the U.S. border, we'd have online version of the documentation, like we do for Deveaux School Historic District, High and Locust Streets Historic District, and Chilton Avenue-Orchard Parkway Historic District out of historic sites in Niagara County, New York. Wikipedia practice varies on individual buildings that are contributing resources in historic districts in the U.S.: there can be a separate article for it, it can be covered as a list-item in a historic district article (Manlius Village Historic District is one example listing its buildings briefly), it can have a separate section in the article on the district. Here, I can say for sure that it is a "contributing building" within the district. Given the existing article, but without the actual detailed documentation of the district and school building in hand, I can say that I strongly believe it is worthy of a separate article...that the documentation exists...but I can't say there absolutely has to be one. Other B&B's within historic districts usually do get separate articles, I believe. There is not an article about the historic district separate from the article about the larger town, else I would suggest merging it to a section or mention within the historic district article. I would not have started a separate article on it myself without the documentation, but since there is an article I would AGF that the article starter is informed enough (even if they have COI) to judge that it has merit, and especially given its general compatibility to the district-type info, I would keep it. Also it is a small service to B&B-interested readers to allow them information on this B&B of historic interest. It can be tagged for needing more referenced development. --doncram 00:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Informed interpretation", "observe from the street view" and "I can say for sure" all sound like original research. If you can provide a source that establishes that the building is an important part of the historic district, then I will reconsider my opinion below. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - A building happening to be located in a registered historical district is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability — if the building itself does not have an independent historical designation in its own right, and isn't the subject of any significant reliable source coverage in its own right, then it does not get an inclusion freebie just because of where it happens to be located. If you have to guess that it's probably a "contributing building" to the historical character of the district, because reliable sources aren't explicitly saying that it is a contributing building to the historical character of the district, then that's original research. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the historic district is no doubt notable, but notability is not inherited and no sources have been provided that demonstrate that the building is itself notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that editor Cordless Larry in this edit has removed substantial material from the article, on stated basis that it is OR. I think that is not reasonable. It is not OR to "interpret" photos of the building to state factually that the building has 2 stories, that it has a peaked roof sloping to front and back, that it has 5 windows/doors along its front. Maybe if one is not familiar with what a bay (architecture) is, one could think an expert is needed? All that is needed is to count to 5, an expert is not needed to make simple observation that is not contested. :( It is also not OR to read the summary of historic district definition and find those facts (and it having been built in 1859, info from elsewhere) are among the defining characteristics of buildings deemed to contribute to the historic character of the district. --doncram 10:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming that the subject is a "contributing building" and that "it reflects the conservation movement in Canada by its restoration work 'sympathetic to the original appearance and character of buildings built during the 1815 to 1859 period'" when the source doesn't even mention the building is OR, I'm afraid. If you want to describe the building based on Google Street View, then fine, but your additions were original research and synthesis in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Niagara Public School, which is perhaps a better place to discuss this. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Front of Niagara Public School building in 2012

Comment The article has been developed by an IP editor and myself and now includes more references. In the deletion nomination it was asserted that the article creator (who is editor Tataryn has a COI, with possible implication that the article is positively biased about the subject. I don't see evidence of COI or bias. @Bearcat:, could you please explain? If it cannot be supported, then that assertion should be disregarded in the closing judgment. In any event, the article as developed by creator through 15 May 2012 seems short and factual, and the article has since been modified to a significant degree. --doncram 21:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would disregard the COI issue anyway - an article written by a COI editor can always be rewritten to be neutral. Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced about the subject's notability. Few of the sources cited mention the building, so there isn't significant coverage, and as has been argued above, notability isn't inherited from the historic district. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - One of the sources that you added (Directory of Designations), doncram, is a broken link, which makes me wonder how you verified it? Was it working earlier? I've tagged it as dead for now. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I used the Canadian Register of Historic Places page about the historic district at http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=14623&pid=0 , which I found originally as footnote 8 in Niagara-on-the-Lake article. I had no luck with the broken link either, which is given in footnote 7 at that article. My best guess is that it was a general search on "Niagara-on-the-Lake" like this current one, but it is/was not important, you confirm it is dead, and so I am deleting its mention in the article now. Thanks. --do ncr am 00:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator's edit history also includes a (now-deleted) article about a subject — I won't give the full name here because WP:OUTING, but it's not hard to find if you need to know — whose surname matched the creator's username, and who was claimed (but not sourced) as the namesake of the B&B that now occupies this school building because it's owned by that article subject's father. I can't presume to judge whether the creator is that article subject himself, the father or the other brother whose name was reportedly portmanteaued with that article subject's to create the B&B's name, but it was quite clearly a member of the immediate family of the B&B's owner. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for explanation. So it may be like many articles on historic buildings, in that it was started by an owner or occupant, and then developed, which is fine. --do ncr am 00:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being sourced enough to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask which sources you think constitute significant coverage, VMS Mosaic? As mentioned above, I am concerned that one of the sources doesn't actually mention the building. The others only seem to mention it briefly. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Hart[edit]

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

Lacks notability, plain and simple. Page covers activities and accomplishments that are non-notable. References are very weak. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable award winner 2013 WP:FILMMAKER, on air presenter for radio station in the key Drive slot. Gnan garra 09:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is clear across a range of areas, theatre and film. JarrahTree 13:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDoing a few Youtube clips and managing a dance troupe typically does not make for notability.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage about he in independent reliable sources. Award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for writing and starring in stage productions shown at a state level, for directing an award winning short film,for directing television documentaries and hosting primetime city radio programme. The existing references are quite good, WP:BASIC is passed IMO Atlantic306 (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is still questionable for weight with the article still needing improvements of which I'm not seeing any better signs soon. Draft if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete I would hardly consider the West Australian Screen Awards a major award. It gets only 1 gnews hit. So to hinge this person's notability on an award of dubious notability is rather weak. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in several areas.Bruriyah (talk) 20:49, 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 keep. Several comments indicating work that needs to be done to the article, but no need for the AFD to remain open for that to happen. I am not at all knowledgable in the subject matter, so I will leave it to someone else to handle moving the article and changing to the lead section accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeryn Hogarth[edit]

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

I'm not sure about this one, so I'm putting it to the community. The page history (the article was created just before Jessica Jones (TV series) aired), balance of how the article is written (well over half the text is about the TV show character with a different name), and the balance of sourced to unsourced material (all three sources currently cited are about the TV show) all make me very suspicious about whether the comic book character meets GNG, whether this page should be moved to match the more-famous, gender-flipped TV version, or whether the page should just be deleted or redirected to a list of characters. I'm basically neutral here, but I think the community should discuss it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, and overwrite redirect to List of Marvel Comics character: H. I've decided that in my opinion the solution is somewhere between User:Argento Surfer and User:FudgeFury. The article is currently all about the gender-swapped TV version with a different name, and has been since its creation, so the page history should be kept under a new title Jeri Hogarth, and discussion of the less-notable comic version should be kept in a separate list. A link to the Jeri Hogarth article should be added as a "see also" or in the discussion of Jeryn in the list page. Given what they've already said I actually think AS and FF will both agree with this proposal, which is why I'm pinging them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: H. The character seems noteworthy within Marvel Comics, but not notable enough for a standalone article. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is notable enough for a standalone article especially since it is portrayed in more than one kind of major media. FudgeFury^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 00:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)..[reply]

@FudgeFury: Have you read either the article or my opening comment? The more famous portrayal in the recent Netflix show is a gender-swapped version with a different name, so simply saying "Keep because the character has been adapted to other media" is not a good rationale, because you should actually be !voting for "Rename and rewrite to provide due weight". Also, if you know anything about the MCU, you know that "the character has been portrayed in more than one kind of major media" is not a good rationale for keeping a standalone article, because these films and TV shows are overrun with cameos by obscure comic book characters, at least one of whom was plucked from an obscure book from sixty years ago and made into a central character in a network TV show (similar to Hogarth, the character was radically altered from being a villainous white character to being a a heroic African-American whose race is mentioned several times throughout the show; but at least he wasn't renamed). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and rewrite as per above suggestion. FudgeFury^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 00:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that works better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. This character is a supporting character in the comics of Iron Fist and Heroes for Hire. For all we know, they might adapt Jeri Hogarth into the comics as a relative of Jeryn. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtkat3: Being a supporting fictional character in two relatively minor comic book franchises is not how we do things, and the articles you link to above don't even discuss ongoing comic book series of those titles -- they are about other fictional characters who themselves are more prominent and probably do meet GNG. Also, WP:CRYSTAL: "the independently notable gender-swapped version of this character may become a separate figure in the comic books at some later date" doesn't work as a rationale, because the male version called Jeryn still is not discussed in any detail in reliable third-party sources. And on top of that you are saying that if that happens then the content of our current article will be found to have been inaccurate, as our article clearly establishes what all the reliable sources say -- that Jeri is a gender-swapped version of Jeryn. Your rationale seems less in tune with a !vote to keep the standalone article as is than with something akin to Argento Surfer's above proposal to merge with a list of minor Marvel characters. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeryn hasn't appeared in almost a decade. And meanwhile, shoehorning Jeri in as a relative of Jeryn would be a little awkward given that she's explicitly described as the MCU adaptation of the Earth-616 character (her legal name is supposedly even "Jeryn"). Sure, it wouldn't be _impossible_, but it's also not impossible that they'll write me, you, and Mr. T in as new relatives of Jeryn; that possibility isn't enough to make him notable. --50.0.128.185 (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and rewrite or delete. The fact that they're different characters isn't really relevant. After all, Will Simpson has even less in common with the comics' Frank "Nuke" Simpson, but Will and Frank don't need separate pages. The issue here is that comics Jeryn clearly isn't notable enough to have his own page, but TV's Jeri may be. I'm not sure she is. So far, she's a supporting character in a 13-episode miniseries, who made one cameo in a related miniseries, and has been announced to appear (possibly just as another cameo) in another. It certainly seems _likely_ that she'll end up being an important link that ties together the four Netflix series and the Defenders, but is there a reliable source saying she will? If not, I think they both belong on the list page. If so, I think the article should be renamed to Jeri, because she's the reason the character is notable. (According to the producers, her name is actually Jeryn, and Jeri is a nickname--but she's only ever called Jeri on screen, and in the credits, and even on the props, so I can't imagine anyone will search for her as Jeryn...) --50.0.128.185 (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does needs a bit of attention though. -- S ^talk/_contribs 02:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@S: As discussed above, you can be in favour of "keeping" this article and still think it should be renamed and rewritten. The character for whom the article is currently named (and whom the article currently appears to think it is about) almost certainly fails GNG, being a minor side-character from a few comic that weren't very well-known to begin with. The article was written to coincide with the release of the Jessica Jones TV series and at present is almost entirely about the character's (gender-flipped and renamed) representation in that TV series. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Wonderful, but I've made my vote for reasons I don't have time to draw lengthy answers for. So keep, rename/rewrite, but I vote against deletion. -- S ^talk/_contribs 01:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a no-brainer Keep - I think because of the Jessica Jones connection, and the fact that the character just appeared in season 2 of Daredevil, mean that he/she will continue to play an important part of the Marvel universe, on screen and off.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fireflyfanboy: Please read the discussion, or at least the opening comment, before declaring that something is a no-brainer. Not all AFDs are simply a case of "this page should be deleted" vs. "this page should not be deleted" Your above comment implies you agree with me that his page should be renamed and radically tweaked to be more visibly about the obviously more notable Netflix version of the character, and the current title should be redirected to a list of minor Iron Fist characters. "This character was referenced in a couple MCU TV shows means that the comic book version of the character is notable enouh to merit an independent article" doesn't even begin to make sense -- these TV shows are filled with cameos by and references to obscure comic book characters who haven't appeared in the comics in decades. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but move to Jeri Hogarth and rewite. The subject of the article seems notable enough to me to receive an article, but I do agree it should be moved and needs attention. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 05:41, 9 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. Overall consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Office[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not Advertising, marketing or public relations, not notable, no secondary sources could be found on the product, mostly first party links Iammsully (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful for potential users. (And the number of users makes it important) OlavN (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness is not an established criteria for keeping articles. The issue here is notability, WP:N, and the lack of reliable sources WP:RS.Dialectric (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in addition to its utility for our readers and those who wish to utilize the actual software and garner information about it, it has also been the subject of a nice bit of secondary source coverage over the past several years. — Cirt (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been a speedy. If you remove the generic hits by searching for ("Virtual Office" "ContactOffice Group" -wikipedia) instead, you find nothing can be found to help this product meet WP:GNG. The "utility for the reader" argument must be ignored as it's not even an acceptable one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up incidental mentions, but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did my own search and can't find anything to show notability. The argument that it should be "useful for potential users" and "its utility for readers" isn't part of Wikipedia's notability/reference policies or part of any policies that I'm aware of as per Dialectric. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found one brief 2001 mention ([33] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) of Fortis Bank using ContactOffice software, which may be or have been this product-set, but nothing to indicate that the product is notable. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 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 merge to Weekly Shōnen Jump. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of items associated with Weekly Shōnen Jump[edit]

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

WP:NOT a catalog or directory. Entirely unsourced, just a list of products and links to web stores. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is indeed in very bad shape. Especially with sentences like "The most likely series of JUMP Comics (store-wise) would be Naruto". It is in dire need of referencing, removal of promotional content, and needs a new name. My only comment would be that these are surmountable problems. If we had to look at the notability of JUMP and the possibility of a sub-article for their products there is plenty of significant coverage. JUMP is one of the largest manga publications in Japan. A WP:BEFORE search reveals thousands of sources, particularly in Japanese, and many of them are about their products. I'm not certain if there's enough for a sub-article on each product. The main article is already a fair size which brings us right back to a single sub-article about their products if it can be written well. We can and do have articles about commercial products if covered in a comprehensive and encyclopedic way. Before we mention WP:OTHERSTUFF, the Star Wars franchise as being a prolific example, has a relevant and comparable series of sub articles about products related to the franchise that meet our notability standards. Based upon the sources available, this article could likely get there under a single sub article. Mkdw ^talk 15:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny the possibility that an article could be written on this topic. But this article is pretty much WP:JUNK and it would be better to WP:STARTOVER Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully Gaijin42, if that is your reason for nominating this article, such a reason is listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Specifically under the WP:SURMOUNTABLE subsections. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though Wikipedia could have an article on this subject, there is nothing that can be salvaged from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanlu121 (talk • contribs)
Delete This list looks more like an advertisement, delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG KEEP because AFD is premature, no cleanup effort has even been tried yet. This article has been on WP since 2008 (EIGHT YEARS!) and nobody has EVER added so much as a single {{citation needed}} tag in all those years but now suddenly the solution is to WP:BLOWITUP? That is not the WP way. Clearly the subject matter is potentially notable, some of the article sections already have main articles of their own and most are likely to have significant sources available (albiet probably most of those will be in Japanese). The work contributed by others is a good starting point and those contributions should not be eliminated from the encyclopedia but rather treated as an outline that can be expanded and substantiated. Instead of "nuking" the article, add the appropriate cleanup tags and start the cleanup process as it was intended to work at Wikipedia. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 09:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging prior contributors to the article per edit history: @John of Reading:,@Jump Guru:,@StrangerAtaru:,@TheFarix:,@AnmaFinotera:,@Nihonjoe:,@Dismas:,@Mild Bill Hiccup:,@Dream Focus:,@Imaginatorium:

The problem with clean up tags is that you then spend more time waiting for someone to do the work. I take your raise 8 years of no tagging and raise it with it clearly not being improved much in those 8 years. In this case, much of the content can go on other pages rather than being bundled into a list of related items. Also citation needed tags should be for individual statements, not for covering a page in them when hardly any of it is sourced to start with. I don't think this is purely a cleanup issue, it's just not particularly encyclopaedic and list of related things articles tend to be an excuse for otherwise unsuitable pages. With work it could possibly be a great article but I think that should be proven first. If you think it can be improved then you could sandbox an article and present it at a later time? It needs a lot of work and people tend not to get involved in those articles. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE. Absolutely disgusting article. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Steven Mouseman (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a feminist woman I am extremely unhappy with this article, it is disgusting and discriminatory towards women. We absolutely do not need to give exposure to Weekly Shōnen Jump given its extreme misogynist roots and terrorist connections, especially to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. My husband Justin Anthony Knapp is very upset over this article. SamanthaStunner (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above comments were struck as they are obvious sock puppets of Cow cleaner 5000. —Farix (t | c) 11:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possible merge The list is a mess, but the content should be easily verifiable via primary sources. The question becomes, is this the best way to present it? I would recommend that the content merged into other articles, such as Weekly Shōnen Jump and Shueisha. —Farix (t | c) 11:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the possible merge as an alternative to keep but I think some cleanup effort for the article needs to be attempted first. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 11:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some content to Weekly Shōnen Jump and redirect to that page (some content may be more suited to other oages). The imprints should be mentioned on the parent title's article for example. I could support recreating the page once the work has been done to improve it (either in sandbox or as a split from WSJ once the content has been improved) SephyTheThird (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SephyTheThird: What content would benefit Weekly Shōnen Jump? The list of items associated... article is only tied down to primary sources, if a merge takes place then I would be careful not to make it seem promotional. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angus has pretty much covered my thoughts below. For what it's worth the WSJ article needs work already so I don't see much changing in terms of quality. However we should see it as an oppurtunity to improve coverage of this important brand.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and trim As the parent article covers the overall brand, it makes sense to place most of this information in there. There should be a Merchandising section, Events section, Online websites and Other ventures sections for the amusement parks. All those external links to the individual things are not needed either. Should any of the items be notable and sourceable to spin off to its own article, then consider it then. But yeah the article as is looks like a corporate catalog. For example: Jump Shop can be reduced to a sentence or two just saying what it is (Merchandise store) and where it's located (Osaka Japan). Jump Festa already has its own events article, so it can be summarized as well to "Jump Festa is an annual multi-day convention, attracting tens of thousands of attendees". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weekly Shōnen Jump is NOT a notable magazine. Greater Wings Did Fly (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) First, and most important, this AfD is not about the WP article on the magazine itself, but about a separate WP article listing related products and events. (b) Second, the claim that Weekly Shōnen Jump is not notable is laughable. I have absolutely no interest in the manga world, but it is obvious that any magazine that has been published for almost 50 years, is translated into multiple languages around the world, and has a home-country circulation of over 6 Million readers is definitely notable. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 07:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Koala Tea Of Mercy, are you trolling or a paid editor? Weekly Shōnen Jump is only known because it is often used as a recruiting tool for ISIL and for children to get off at the extreme amount of ecchi and violent content in its pages. Weekly Shōnen Jump? Notable? Don't make me laugh User:Koala Tea Of Mercy! Greater Wings Did Fly (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comments were struck as they are obvious sock puppets of Cow cleaner 5000. SephyTheThird (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. List should be incorporated into main article, per AngusWOOF. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Possible WP:TNT considering the state the article is in. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:04, 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 speedy delete. A7 and G11 have already been declined but the SPI has now been closed and G5 is clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Development Institute[edit]

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

previously speedy deleted page under G11 and A7( not applicable). see Global development institute. page also lacks multiple credible sources to support its claim of significance and created by GDI UoM (Global Development Institute University of Manchester) so a serious case of WP:COI. Nicky mathew (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Previous instances of this article were created last week by User:Globaldevelopmentinstitute, which was reminded about WP:COI standards and then blocked. What looks like the same article has now been created by User:GDI UoM. Leaving aside WP:SOCK and undeclared COI matters, there is no evidence of WP:RS coverage of this Institute, which was formed last month. At best WP:TOOSOON; until better can be demonstrated, through accomplishments over a period of time, maybe the name variants should be WP:SALTed? AllyD (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CSD G5(created by blocked user in violation of block). The two creators of this page seem to be the same person. I have started an SPI. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:41, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HD 234078[edit]

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

This star is non-notable because it fails all criteria of WP:NASTRO and does not fulfill WP:GNG, either. Going through the WP:NASTRO criteria in order, it (1) is not visible to the naked eye and has never been so; (2) is one of several hundred thousand stars in a catalog which is not of particular interest to amateur astronomers; (3) has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works"; and (4) was cataloged after 1850. As for notability per WP:GNG, I cannot find any significant, in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources. I did a full-text search for "HD 234078" in NASA's ADS search engine to search the scholarly literature, and I found that just one paper mentions this star, and even then, it does so just once, in a long table. Astro4686 (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per a very well reasoned and policy-supported nomination. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - possible claim to notability as a member of this list of nearby stars: List_of_nearest_bright_stars. Lithopsian (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a part of that list doesn't help it satisfy any of WP:NASTRO. For the brightness of an object (apparent brightness) to enter into notability it has to be visible to the naked eye. With an apparent brightness of 8.99, I don't believe that you have much of a chance of seeing it without at least binoculars. Insert CleverPhrase Here 14:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naked eye visibility is *one* possible path to notability. However there are plenty of others. I suggested one that could apply to this star: nearness to Earth. Lithopsian (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi @Lithopsian: Thank you for your thoughts. If this star had received significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources because of its proximity to Earth, the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) would be satisfied. However, I have been unable to find any such coverage, and as Praemonitus points out, there are many other stars that are closer to Earth. As for WP:NASTRO, it doesn't identify proximity to Earth as a basis for notability. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's an ordinary star with no interesting features, other than its relative proximity. (It's one of ~1,400 nearby stars within that distance.) I couldn't find any dedicated studies or even a brief mention in the scholarly journals. The star was included in a search for infrared excess, but that produced no result. Praemonitus (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per nom (kudos for the well-detailed nomination). Yes, it is close to Earth, but that is not a criterion of WP:NASTRO (and much less of WP:GNG), and I do not see any compelling reason it should be specifically taken into account. Tigraan (talk) 15:50, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ashade[edit]

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

No evidence of Notability. Prod removed with "More sources are coming", but the only link thus far is a passing mention that this chef will appear in a cooking show. From internet searching I find no significant coverage from reliable sources, per WP:GNG, and no evidence of satisfying WP:ANYBIO. Appearance on an unaired TV show does not in itself constitute notability: for now it is WP:TOOSOON for a biography. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No substantial evidence that he meets WP:N as per nom. Not a "celebrity chef" exactly either. JTtheOG (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not satisfying any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lever as faild principle[edit]

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

See WP:ESSAY Ethanlu121 (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per WP:ESSAY and per WikiDan61. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:MADEUP (WP:CSD#A11). So tagged. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:34, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Aston[edit]

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

This is a heavily WP:COI and possibly WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY article. Subject likely fails WP:ACADEMIC. Subject is an Assistant Professor, which is not tenured, only tenure track, so no guarantee the subject ever obtains academic tenure. For all the stuff listed in the article, nothing that sets him apart or distinguishes him from the hundreds of others seeking academic tenure around the world. IF/when this guy makes tenure and does something to distinguish himself pursuant to WP:ACADEMIC, then will be the time for this article. For now. delete. Safiel (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; none of the content seems to support significant notability at this time. —swpb^T 14:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable based on profession alone. //nepaxt 18:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability and none of the current article suggests convincingly keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Arras[edit]

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

Delete: utterly non-notable character actor. Quis separabit? 21:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not convincing for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 00:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 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 redirect to List of Monster High characters. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 18:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spectra Vondergeist (Monster High)[edit]

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

Another monster high character who has their own article. This one doesn't have any sources and the character isn't notable.*Treker (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 00:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SwisterTwister and Wirbelwind. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous editors. Just to note, several minor MH characters went through the process and were changed to redirects. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 06:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 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 speedy keep. No rationale given by nominator. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UN Youth Ghana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Dr. Daniel Obuobi 18:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC) DR. DANIEOL OBUOBI talk

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:13, 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 Redirect as this is obvious (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina sewer monster[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/North Carolina sewer monster (2nd nomination)

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

This article is about a single event (WP:ONEEVENT), mostly reported in social media as a cryptozoid (WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, WP:GNG) that was notable for about a week before being dispelled as simply a collection of normal sewer-dwelling worms (WP:NTEMP).--User:WoodElf 14:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tubifex tubifex. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Tubifex tubifex. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tubifex tubifex. Possibly deserves a sentence about sewer-dwelling worms noted in news reports. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tubifex tubifex. I would have suggested a selective merge but made myself what I feel are the necessary edits. Creating redirects for the alternative names may be needed as well. Tigraan (talk) 11:47, 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 speedy keep. "Too short an article" is as about as invalid as it gets, If Shawn in Montreal or Oakshade wanna start an SPI I obviously have no objections but anywho closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cuchiniș River[edit]

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

Too short an article Ardomlank (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, just after we get this almost identically worded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kvinnefossen from a different editor, this new user (or sock?) pops up with another non-policy based, wrong-headed deletion rationale for a body of water. Article length is not a reason to delete, not if the subject of the article is clear enough, which it surely is. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A flawlessly executed AfD on this nom's very first mainspace edit? I smell socks. Not proper rationale for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care. Don't be so Anglocentric, there is outside world. I am from other Wiki. Ardomlank (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:21, 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.