Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 March	27 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Wilhelmsen[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sputnik David Wilhelmsen this is his information!!!! and he play in a fully pro league in division 2 in thailand with Inter Pattaya FC

This is the reference : https://www.facebook.com/GreanInterPattayaFC/?rc=p http://pantip13.rssing.com/browser.php?indx=9151263&item=42636

if you have a problem can call me at the FAT.Sir Sputnik I don't know why you have a problem with me the information thai I edit I want to make Thail Football information clearly and the information must be true but nowaday football thai at Wikipedia not true enough about the real information so I come here to use my knowledge to improve all of the information about Thai Football at wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministerboy (talk • contribs) 00:16, 27 March 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject fails WP:GNG – I cannot find a single reliable source. Regional League Division 2 is not on the list of fully-professional leagues and subject has not played senior international football, so WP:NFOOTY is also failed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of this topic meeting the WP:GNG. C 679 22:53, 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 Deleted as I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford who's who[edit]

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

This article is about a not-very-notable subject. It does not have any reliable sources other than itself, and a quick web search does not yield many sources at all. epicgenius @ 23:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. epicgenius @ 23:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a few trivial mentions in press releases, such as [1] and [2], and there are a few hits on Google Books that seem to be authors who are bragging about their inclusion. However, I don't see coverage in reliable sources about the Who's Who itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:36, 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 delete. The merits of redirecting a BLP to an article about sexually transmitted diseases should be discussed separately and in more depth, I think. Sandstein 07:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Ashley[edit]

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

[3] BLP1E too Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG.. –Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per below - She's already mentioned there so may aswell redirect too. –Davey2010^Talk 02:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or very selectively merge to STDs in the porn industry#HIV cases, where the central incident is already discussed in a broader context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic film actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best or only redirect later if needed as the article is basically still questionably better overall, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Wolfowitz. There is already information and even a picture of her at the target article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting "keeps" that make no policy-based arguments and low-editcount accounts as possible meat- or sockpuppets. Sandstein 07:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Career Institute[edit]

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

@103.6.159.93: queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say without Indian sources, but from a general look it seems legitimate enough. I would say KEEP Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best it still fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. At worst a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article should not be deleted, as it is significantly covered in media. Also, the institute is ranked no.1 in coaching institutes of Kota, Rajasthan, the coaching capital of India. Other cram schools in city such as Vibrant Academy, Bansal Classes also have their articles (which are below in ranking than Allen), so this article is surely liable to and be KEpt on Wikipedia. In my view, it does not seem to be promotional but provide general information through reliable sources.❤ TrendSPLEND^✉ 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable organisation, given the number of secondary sources available. There is also a firm AfD precedence at keeping articles on Indian coaching institutes (AfD 1, AfD 2, AfD 3, AfD 4, AfD 5). A bit of a promotional tone is not a reason for deletion. Deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. 103.6.159.91 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that because we keep one, we should keep them all. That only applies to schools that grant degrees, not schools which prepare people to take examination to e be admitted into schools from which they will eventually get degrees. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing what you say I am arguing. You seem to be referring to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which is not a part of my !vote. I was just citing a precedence, in accordance with WP:OSE which says that "arguments ... that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted ... may be effective arguments ...". Nevertheless, the main point is that there are too many secondary sources. 103.6.159.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good organisation,One of the Reputed Institute in India. It is very famous institute head office based in Kota , Rajasthan. • satya_satapathy (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft instead because this still seems troubled enough to where mainspace is not acceptable yet. Delete and improve before moving to mainspace again, SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article have good reference and I think the institution is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, it should be improved to take away the promotional languague but beside that its a good article.Wizardlis54 (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient evidence of notability, and very clear promotional intent, as shown by the achievements section, which has been repeatedly removed but restored. The argument given above is that such achievements are considered significant in India: so they are, they are considered significant by prospective students, and an article written to appeal to prospective students is advertising, not encyclopedic writing. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia . (and we probably should reconsider the other such schools also). DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page has changed a lot over the past 3 days that hopefully clears away most of the promotionalism. You might want to consider the recent changes - the Courses section was removed and a gist of it was added to the lead, the Achievements section was trimmed removing the achievements by alumni not related to what allen does. The current version is the cleanest and least promotional. 103.6.159.66 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ - Now, the page should be kept.❤ TrendSPLEND^✉ 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote and already voted above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article doesnt seems to be promotional in its current version, and it seems to be clearly notable.Masterofroks (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I have just made some changes to make it more clean and less promotional, i vote keep.Fluffyxxx (talk) 22:07, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste (actress)[edit]

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

[4] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG.. –Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's won two major awards, was a Vivid Girl, etc. Nightscream (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The purportedly "major awards" cited by Nightscream are scene-related awards which WP:PORNBIO expressly provides do not contribute to/establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not better satisfying applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as awards are not major and little coverage. Esquivalience ^t 00:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the mentioned "awards" do not fit our guidelines for pornographic actors, so we need to delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 01:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Duvalle[edit]

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

[5] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... Well I was gonna say "it should've deleted the first time round" ... but surprisingly it actually was deleted so.... Anyway fails PORNBIO & GNG.. –Davey2010^Talk 03:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the subject of a non-notable song on a non-notable, noncommercial mixtape is the closest thing to a claim of notability here, and that's nowhere near good enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Fires[edit]

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

[6] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as fails PORNBIO & GNG... but meets WP:HOTTIE which is a keep in my book :) ... –Davey2010^Talk 03:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a humorous Keep which cannot be taken seriously.

SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have more of such keeps :) @Davey2010:

Joking around like this about a pornstar is what gets Wiki noted for being a place that's unfriendly to women. We're supposed to approach AfD with a neutral point of view, not with adolescent humor about how someone looks. This isn't the worst I've seen on a porn AfD, but its tone still isn't welcome. We're better than this. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And taking everything (like my comment above) so seriously is what makes this place so miserable.... Lighten up. –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The stats log doesn't differentiate sexist adolescent humor from actual votes, and counts you as a "keep." Perhaps some people need to light up. Perhaps some people need to grow up.VanEman (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect anyone (admin or editor) to count my keeps...., I like to have a bit of a laugh and I'll continue with my keep !votes, Perhaps some people need to get a sense of humour instead of turning this place into the miserable shithole it's becoming (I know AFDs closed but I had no idea someone replied and plus I moved a comment down anyway). –Davey2010^Talk 03:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails PORNBIO, as NN awards necessarily fail the higher PORNBIO standard of well-known and significant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Some coverage by tabloids, several moderate award nominations, a dozen mentions (all three may indicate notability), but can't find anything more significant. Esquivalience ^t 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not better convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:BLP. Mwenzangu (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails PORNBIO and the refs aren't quite good enough for the GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Megalibrarygirl . Lack of objectivity on a subject like this just reinforces the bad rep Wiki has for systemic bias. VanEman (talk) 17:56, 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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Luv[edit]

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

[7] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly bereft of reliable independent sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of significant coverage in reliable sources so fails WP:BASIC also no qualifying awards, new genres or blockbusters or much mainstream coverage so PORNBIO is not passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comes nowhere close to meeting PORNBIO or GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:20, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krysti Lynn[edit]

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

[8] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not currently or ever any future signs, frankly of better applicable notability thus nothing convincing for keeping. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails PORNBIO and most coverage just deals with her premature death and being the girlfriend of John Stagliano, so she doesn't pass the GNG either in my opinion.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage beyond routine coverage of her unfortunate death, which is not sufficient to support a freestanding article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:05, 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 delete. Deor (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Maier[edit]

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

[9] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete is fine with me, but how about #3 in WP:PORNBIO "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" - see refs in the article and [10]. Materialscientist (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus practice, Penthouse pictorials aren't considered "mainstream" under PORNBIO, nor are softcore men's magazines. The Playboy cite is just a picture/caption in its annual rather arbitrary compilation of "sex star" photos, with perfunctory accompanying text. "Mainstream" here is intended to exclude appearances in commercial erotica. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pronographic film actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no convincing signs of actually better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was pretty well known in Europe in her time but technically fails PORNBIO and seemingly doesn't have enough coverage to pass the GNG.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Sensations (film). I think it can be argued that she meets WP:PORNBIO #2 for Sensations, the first European porn film to be successful in the US. There were full-page ads for it in the New York Times apparently. Googling around a bit, I found the claim that she was interviewed by the Chicago Sun-Times in 1975, but haven't been able to track that down. Google Book searches for her name and "sensations" lead to a couple of snippets that indicate she was an important porn star of the 1970s. —Kusma (t·c) 19:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found her on Newspaper Archive in 1975. Those may be a similar interview, Kusma. The problem is that Newspaper Archive is going through a problem with their database and while hits pop up, I can't view them. Here's a link to the search: [11]. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom - definitely fails PORNBIO — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:31, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette Monet[edit]

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

[12] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This nomination is WP:WAX, but the subject is clearly not notable. Fails PORNBIO and GNG with no significant reliable source coverage and no awards. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently not better satisfying the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic film actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was pretty well known during her career but she fails PORNBIO as it is now and doesn't have enough coverage to pass the GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenon-notable. VanEman (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication os sufficient reliable sourcing to support a BLP article. The apparent lack of significant book coverage for a supposedly significant performer from this era is striking. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janey Robbins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

[13] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing else for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means WP:BASIC is not passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy the notability requirements for pronographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to satisfying PORNBIO, and no indication that whatever coverage there might be of a film she performed in would satisfy BLP/GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:59, 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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Daniels (actress)[edit]

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

[14] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the "body double" for an animated character does not establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets neither PORNNIO or GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:54, 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 video game emulators. And merge from history as desired. Sandstein 07:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genecyst[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSOFTWARE. Red Phoenix: converted this into a redirect a few years ago for that reason, but the article was restored due to a good faith disagreement, and for that reason I didn't just restore the redirect. I'm not sure whether this should be deleted or the redirect restored. Adam9007 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but migrate what's possible to list of video game emulators. By the way, what's the procedure for dealing with articles on historical software? This is not mainstream, but was a immense part of the Genesis/Mega Drive emulation scene some years ago. Do obsolete software simply become uncyclopedic? Are we taking notability to be about current software only? This is the kind of stuff I wish Wikipedia was more inclusive about. — LucasVB | Talk 22:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but migrate what's possible to list of video game emulators - As aboveDeathlibrarian (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to List of video game emulators. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indoss, Teacher Training Institute, Delhi[edit]

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

PRODded twice, and nominated for CSD twice. Adam9007 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Degree granting institutions are generally considered notable. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that this does not appear to be a degree-granting institution. It's a training college for pre-school teachers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that changes things. ~Kvng (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Priest (judge)[edit]

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

entire article is 4 sentences and those are already covered in Tom DeLay campaign finance trial TacfuJecan (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some additional references unrelated to the DeLay case. The fact that Priest's involvement in DeLay's trial is his most notable activity does not prevent him from being independently notable. bd2412 T 22:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would say from looking at the references, there is just enough to keep him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - District judges make controversial rulings and oversee big cases throughout their careers, many times when they involve high-profile defendants, which means they are often mentioned in newspapers. But their jobs do not make them notable. Besides a lot of mentions because of the DeLay case, nothing is notable about the subject. There is not enough significant coverage of the subject to render him notable. This article does not pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG is not the appropriate standard here; it is Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#Judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction. bd2412 T 04:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The criteria for Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#Judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction states, "Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability." Evidence of this judge's notability cannot and has not been established by other indicia. The coverage for such notability is simply not there. It fails. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate notability per WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:05, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Cecil (actor)[edit]

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

No significance Music1201 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small career, small parts, fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no current signs of imaginably better notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - best source I could find was http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2016/02/17/a-list-of-the-best-shows-on-all-4/ where the subject is merely mentioned by name in the starring section of number 18. Thought this might be a duplicate of Jonathan Cecil for a moment, but that proved to be wrong.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:11, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. It's fair to say that this article isn't in good shape at present, but it's new and there's a clear consensus that it covers a notable topic. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

308th Infantry Regiment (United States)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Seems to be mostly WP:OR with no sources to back-up claims JMHamo (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is obviously a historical entity we talk about already Lost_Battalion_(World_War_I)#Units_involved. Sources are definitely available, including offline. I don't see anything that looks unbelievable in the article as it is. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 21:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Infantry Regiments are considered notable. Reasonably famous unit due to the Lost Battalion. Plenty of sources available. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable per:

"Lost Battallion". The Columbia Encyclopedia – via Questia (subscription required) .
Kingseed, Cole C. (November 2010). "The Fighting Doughboys of the American Expeditionary Forces". Army – via Questia (subscription required) . 60 (11). United States Army: 45.
Cameron, Cameron (Winter 2009). "Monument Unveils Legend of 'Lost Battalion'". Warrior - Citizen – via Questia (subscription required) . 54 (1). United States Army: 40.
Johnson, Thomas M.; Pratt, Fletcher (2000). The Lost Battalion. University of Nebraska Press – via Questia (subscription required) . ISBN 0-8032-7613-3.

Etc., etc. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this can be closed per WP:SNOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProgrammingGeek (talk • contribs) 03:19, 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 no consensus. Much spirited debate on both sides, but opinions are pretty much split right down the middle. Neither side has made any killer argument which is backed up by policy. I doubt extending this another week would have any chance of a consensus emerging, so calling it NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings[edit]

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

95% of this page is completely predictable statements from every country in the world. It serves no encyclopedic purpose. The important things are the ISIL claim of responsibility and may the Belgium, NATO and EU responses. A much truncated version of the material should be reintegrated into 2016 Brussels bombings and this page deleted. Legacypac (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A discussion already going on here. Very premature and hasty nomination that does not follow WP:BEFORE. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow the Village Pump and a proposal there would not delete the article, only provide guidance for inclusion of info in some article. I also note that discussion is trending toward a conclusion that would support this proposed deletion. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the proposal may be helpful to the deletion case, it certainly wouldn't be used a black and white decision on the matter. There are plenty of articles like this that have both been kept and deleted in the past. Jolly Ω Janner 23:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2016 Brussels bombings#reactions. Per reason number 14 "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia", which leads onto WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The essay at WP:REACTIONS is a great summary which matches my opinion. This article contains no encyclopedic content that is not already within the main article. Outright deletion may not be the best course of action, since the revision history may contain quotes useful for anyone wanting to collate a Wikiquote article. Jolly Ω Janner 22:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support maintaining the article as it reflects the impact of the event and for this reason it is notable. I, too, consider that the current form of the article is problematic for the average reader who can only see a boring list of quotes, but we need to remember that no single Wikipedia reader is "average."

I am sorry to admit that I am not able to propose any alternative because every option I could think of has significant drawbacks. Creating an article that summarises the reactions is original research: eventually, we will need to define a more or less arbitrary yardstick to assess which quotes are notable and which are not. Legacypac implied that the reactions from ISIL, Belgium, NATO and the EU are notable and the others are not. There are examples of clearly notable and clearly not notable quotes but the problem lies in the area between.

Most would agree that Saint Lucia's quote is not exactly making history. But as we go closer to Belgium the lines become blurred: The bombings in Brussels happened in a period where in Europe there is a significant humanitarian crisis with hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing to Europe from the war and ISIS in Syria and other places. With this in mind, the quotes of the nation leaders of all involved EU states become very interesting, possibly even more than those coming from the other side of the Atlantic. Isn't it important to note that an EU member state reversed their agreement for refugee placement as a result of the bombings in Brussels? Similarly, the quotes from Middle East are particularly important as it is the region where ISIS is most active.

In the discussion in the Village Pump the option of moving this content to WikiQuotes has some clear advantages. I wish I were able to offer a good solution but I'm afraid I can't and this is why I propose to keep the article even in this state. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Rentzepopoulos sums it up Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is necessary to describe world reactions RRdictatorremovalspecialist (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can be easily summed up in one sentence at the main article. Also per Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information AIRcorn (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rentzepopoulos Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good sourcing, plenty of reactions. A needed page for an internationally important and significant event.BabbaQ (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD should be closed as it is a current discussion going on at the same time about this article.BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can be summed up in one sentence. There is no encyclopedic requirement for these near identical quotes. Reactions should be limited to affected countries, which is short enough for the main article. Who cares about the condemnations by the Bahamas, Belarus and Botswana for an attack in Belgium? Were Bahamanians killed? Is Belarus sending in an intervention? Has Botswana gone on lockdown? '''tAD''' (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Spirit Ethanol's argument. Inter&anthro (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic, educational, historical, of import to our readers and editors alike, will be useful for sustained period of time in the future, good deal of references to back up the material cited in the article. — Cirt (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Snow~~Strong Keep Please close this one early, I don't know how many AfDs we have gone through when it comes to these reactions articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't Snow while there are delete !votes present. AIRcorn (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per OP and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Predictable statements of condolences and condemnation are of little enduring encyclopedic value. In the rare cases where a reaction stands out as unusual, or unexpected, then they can be covered in the main article or in the bio of the person who said it.- Mr X 02:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is overgeneralization. What about for example, condemnation of attack by some Islamist groups, already considered terrorist organizations by most countries? Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A small minority of the statements, for example from militant Islam groups, are meaningful when presented in prose and in context with the main subject. A list of platitudes, not so much.- Mr X 13:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It so totally predictable it might as well have been copied-and-pasted from the coverage of the previous Western tragedy. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jolly made an interesting proposal in the article's talk page, which in summary relates notability with secondary reliable sources outside the country related to the quote. I think that this AFD debate should be paused until this proposal has received adequate community feedback. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete Most of this is expected in response to an attack such as this. Anything significant can be mentioned in the main article, only splitting if there is enough content. Peter James (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not any desire of mine to have this article kept or deleted, but I would like everyone to note that there is a bit of a similar discussion on the policy village pump, which mentions this specific article. Parsley Man (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete of the indiscriminate, repetitive, useless, non-notable, largely meaningless listing of governmental statements. Merge the actually meaningful prose content. Reywas92 ^Talk 07:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are a bunch of predictable statements, it is useful to note which countries took what stand in the issue for future/relevant references. The article is well written and it can also be improved by adding a date on each statement, revealing how swift the reactions were.Sattar91 (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A bullet list of quotes with pretty flags doesn't exactly make the article well-written, nor is that criteria for keeping an article. The citations all have dates and that's a ridiculous way to use the article. Even so, a better way to present the information you want would be prose in the main article as "Countries X,Y,Z immediately expressed condolences, while countries A,B,C took three days to issue them!" and "Governments condemned the attacks and opposed terrorism, but countries D,E,F said blah-blah-blah". A repetitive bullet point listing of 100+ statements, with the word "condemn" used 82 times, "condolence" 65 times serves no use to the reader. "A bunch" is an understatement - none of these reaction quotes mean a darn thing and few have any connection to that country; only actual actions taken are notable and relevant. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Deletion isn't cleanup, looking at some of the other "reactions to" articles there is WP:POTENTIAL for this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said this article needed clean-up, I said the list of quotes should be deleted, and the rest of the content in prose form should be merged to the main article, as there isn't much of it, so the page could be deleted. If the useful information has potential for a full article, with a summary of the condolences, this page could be kept like the others that should also have the quotes removed. Reywas92 ^Talk 16:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While the article does contain a large amount of boilerplate condolence statements, there is some more substantial content including the impact on social media, debate over the media’s response and more substantial symbolic acts such as President Obama ordering that American flags be flown at half-mast and the numerous ceremonies throughout the world in which the Belgium flag is superimposed over national monuments. In regards to the more boilerplate quotes, I think most of the quotes should be transferred to wikiquote and removed while a map should be colored in to illustrate which states offered condolences. It would look something like the map to the right (except it would actually display which countries offered condolences rather than where Belgium has embassies). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article if you like content about the flag and social media, but it could easily be merged. Delete the non-substantial boilerplate statements. Reywas92 ^Talk 16:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete but merge and redirect to preserve some of the references. As stated, reason number 14 "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia", which leads onto WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The essay at WP:REACTIONS is a great summary which matches my opinion. This article contains no encyclopedic content that is not already within the main article. Outright deletion may not be the best course of action, since the revision history may contain quotes useful for anyone wanting to collate a Wikiquote article. -----Also the Reactions article is a typical mindless, knee jerk Wikipedia article. It is the reason that Wikipedia is the joke website of the world. Some articles are good but you can always count on Reaction articles.------The contents that can be moved to the article are the reactions of the affected countries, which is Belgium and the countries that have a dead citizen and ISIL's reaction. So what about Fiji's reaction? Why not add the reaction of Mrs. Anderson, 3rd grade teacher? Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This should never have come to AfD. The nominator and most of those voting delete agree that at least some of the content merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. What they are proposing, then, is a merge and redirect that would maintain the editing history. No deletion is required. This is a content dispute and should be resolved through the usual content dispute channels. And a note to those suggesting "merge and delete", please see WP:MAD: "Pages that have been merged to other articles should almost never be deleted, since our copyright requires all authors to be publicly credited". Cmeiqnj (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MAD is merely an essay and neither policy nor guideline. It therefore carries no argumentative weight. WWGB (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGEREASON on the other hand is a communal consensus, which does hold weight. Jolly Ω Janner 23:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of quotes or a list of news headlines. There's not sense of lasting notability here, just platitudes and condolences. WP:NOTNEWS clearly counterindicates this by saying "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. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." WP:LISTS specifies that lists must be notable, which this is not. Go put this on Wikinews. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you admit its content would be useful for our sister projects, do you not think that converting it to a redirect and therefore leaving its history intact would be helpful? I agree 100% with your comment, but have suggested that outright deletion may be unhelpful. Jolly Ω Janner 23:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Snow~~ keep. That would be good for a perfect AFD candidate and this considerable a worldwide reaction of a notable terror attack like the Paris attacks of 2015, London bombings of 2015 and September 11 attacks. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While this was an extremely tragic event, these reactions are predictable and non-notable. User:ApprenticeFan votes "snow keep" (though it's not) and links to a few other articles, but note that these are not "Reaction" articles, simply articles for the attacks in question. A few especially notable reactions may be suitable for the main article. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as I'm going with my original thoughts with that this is questionable for its separate article and would be best connected to the main article. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because their reactions were mostly non-notable, they happened and therefore should be included. Bronze2018 (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "condolences" from politicians are nothing but PR to "show" "how much" they "care". I can't believe Wikipedia wants to be in the business of being part of the politicos' public relations arm. XavierItzm (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per a whole row of precedents where consensus clearly established keeping, precedents which were actually started by someone creating multiple AfD's in order to establish a precedent in favor of deletion. Since the exact opposite happened, I think it's due time to stop filing every single one of these articles for deletion. They can be improved, they can (and IMO should) be made more into prose instead of a silly list of individual reactions (nevermind quotes), but that doesn't mean they should go away.

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shanta Ronaldo[edit]

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

Page is about a person whose sole notability comes from being a rather extreme fan of Christiano Ronaldo, for which he has received some minor, fleeting, media attention in the online "Weird" sections of a couple of newspapers. IMO nowhere near enough to satisfy notability guidelines, but ever-so-slightly more than what I feel comfortable CSDing.

Page attracts trolls and vandals like flies, too. (Though that's not a reason to delete, of course--else we may well delete every article dealing with bodily waste, sexuality, sexual acts, religion, politics, etc.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable bloke, I'm inclined to say it fails BLP1E in that the only thing he's done is changed his looks but not entirely sure on that - I find it very very sad you'd wanna spend ££££s to look like someone .... just be happy with who you are!, Anyway fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, as per above. Non notable figure Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was an absolute mess, and I pared back a lot of vandalism just now. I may have taken too much of the second paragraph, so commenters may want to peek at the history as well as the current version–or experienced editors familiar with the article may want to salvage any of the usable stuff out of there. —C.Fred (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yup, but then, 'absolute mess describes' around 80% of the versions in this article's history. As to the second, pruned, paragraph, for those who want to look at it: here. That's the only version of it that makes a vague attempt at sourcing, doesn't include the more blatant vandalism (because I had just cut it out) and doesn't contradict itself thrice over. Still problematic, non-neutral and bordering on vandalism at best, and the sole reason I didn't cut it there and then was that I was making this AfD (and removing problematic-but-sourced info, then open a discussion on the subject's lack of notability, would be a bit iffy, I suspect). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing of actually keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I think it should be a speedy delete! Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:01, 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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Clearwater[edit]

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

Makes a claim to be an excellent rugby player but plays for a Non notable club. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG. Not notable at all Gbawden (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, article has nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Vandella[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. Negligible, mostly trivial biographical content. Negligible independent sourcing. Original PROD disruptively removed without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure, why not, this is an article that actually does fail WP:PORNBIO. There are still many articles on here that fail PORNBIO. Now stop taking winners of non-scene/ensemble awards to AfD/PROD. It's as disruptive as Redban was. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rebecca1990. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of reliable sources coverage that is independent, a lack of mainstream coverage, no awards claimed, no blockbusters or new genres so WP:PORNBIO and WP:BASIC are not passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as fails PORNBIO ... but meets HOTTIE –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod rationale. Cavarrone 18:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable pornography notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:22, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Handgun Club of America[edit]

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

This organization is not notable. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) : "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." A local group that only lasted eight years and nobody cared enough to write about it. Felsic2 (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find any reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Mwenzangu (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better and this is not surprising considering it was only active for 8 years. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 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 redirect per WP:NSONGS. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U Got What I Need[edit]

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

Tracks from the album Letoya that in no way deserve standalone articles, completely failing all requirements of WP:NSONGS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Does not need its own article. Music1201 (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Widr (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artiste or album- non-notable recording. Did this when rg warticle first appeared, but user:MrWriter245 persistently changes all conversions of his "contributions" to redierects.TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect I suppose if needed, certainly not keepable as its own article though. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Letoya (album) per WP:NSONGS. clpo13_(talk) 19:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Keep as this seems enough to keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brother[edit]

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

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

These used to redirect to Sibling, but are turned into articles by I like how u rotate and do not have independent notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These are one of the most commonly referred family relationships, so Wikipedia should have every article on topics that are referred very frequently. Not having brother and sister articles would be like Wikipedia doesn't have articles on cat and dog but these topics are covered in domestic animal article. Planet Star 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Planetstar. There are aspects that are particular to brothers that wouldn't quite fit in Sibling, e.g. rulers in patriarchal societies. But, oh brother, that famous examples list needs to be revamped. Bill Murray has brothers? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't like the idea of perpetuating the gender binary, but there is plenty of literature that specifically discusses male siblings. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Brother. It seems that the AFD is also being redirected from Sister, which should also be a strong Keep. Both need keeping. Gender does matter, as much as the politically correct claim it doesn't; and it certainly does matter in terms of popular culture and folklore and tradition, and we do need to keep those. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 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. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nati Celebrity Services[edit]

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

Essentially the same article as Domenick Nati, which was very recently deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domenick Nati (technically, this article is about the company rather than the individual, which is why I didn't try to apply CSD G4, but I'm not opposed to it if someone else wants to use G4). Non-notable company. The references are all either non-reliable or small publications, or articles that have the tiniest mention of Nati Celebs and don't contribute to notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, it seems pretty likely that WikiPro3 (article's author) is a sockpuppet of User:JellyfishFilms; see the SPI for details. -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article is still questionable for any applicable notability and there are no better convincing of keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 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. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Physics at Singapore, OSP@SG[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is unambiguous promotion by User:Lookang. The article has no context; it says the title was started by the Loo Kang and then goes on to mention who the author is. (Note: I'd tagged the article for speedy deletion which was reverted by ‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.) Ciridae (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quite frankly, your understanding of the standards for unacceptable promotion is grossly deficient, and casts serious doubt on your understanding of deletion criteria generally. Just saying "Fails GNG" without explanation falls far short of an acceptable nomination rationale. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:, the second sentence of my explanation covers both the reasons quite completely. Ciridae (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent RS. refs are just PR blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 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. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginative (album)[edit]

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

It may have an article on Swidish Wikipedia but it has no more sources there than here. The album is not notable and fails any notability criteria. The AllMusic entry is not a review, only a track listing [15]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think it passes WP:GNG, found some reviews here [16] , [17] , [18], [19] there were more , including Japanese, more German. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seaoftranquility.org is not a reliable source.^{Sources to avoid} The reliability of DPRP is disputed.^{Is DPRP reliable?·DPRP.net as a review source} Progwereld doesn't seem reliable to me either. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:08, 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) 01:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, the trouble with the list of RS is that it has hardly any non-english language sources which would be helpful for an album like this. Sea of Tranquility is on the avoid list but the other three references are not, including powermetal.de, they all seem to have a reasonably lengthy history and a dedicated staff, the dutch site has not been put on the avoid list at present.. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this, all in all, is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minuteman Salsa[edit]

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

borderline N. There are some sources ("sauces"), most of which are local audience ("not foreign") [couldn't resist]. Still, local press fails WP:GNG. Currently fails V, SPA/COI promo. WP:TNT Widefox; talk 12:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best this might merit a slight merge somewhere in a "popular culture" section of an article about the immigration debate; I hardly think we need an entire article to mention a barely-noticed failed product. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there were no news articles to speak of in a gNews search, I did find the salsa and the company mentioned in four books each of which confirms the general facts in the article and each of which touches on differing aspects of the story of the salsa and the founding of the company that made it. I've added the citations for the books to the article and also pulled up and linked the webarchive of the company website as one other cite. I've also cleaned up the article just a bit. It can use some more work, of course. Notability is not temporary, so the fact that the company is defunct is not telling in this analysis. There are reliable, third party, independent sources supporting notability. No one is more surprised than myself at my !vote, but I think it's warranted in this case. Take another look at the article and check out the sources I've added. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick review - good work, but... my gut feeling is that notability is from Minuteman Project and a merge there is common sense as this is doomed to be stub-ish, and in popular-culture-ish/news-ish. My crystal ball says it fails WP:10YT. Widefox; talk 07:42, 13 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) 00:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and later Draft and Userfy if needed because this apparently is currently not existing and is thus questionable for any improvements. With the current article being questionable, there's nothing convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Geoff's improvements. Article space is cheap. clpo13_(talk) 19:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this has borderline notability, but the news coverage IMHO establishes that the product existed and was discussed in sufficient depth. --Slashme (talk) 10:14, 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. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Humes[edit]

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

Non-notable artist/broadcaster lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His work with WP paladin radio and The Center for American Military Music Opportunities (CAMMO) as a disabled veteran is notable --Beckycontrols (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A subject is not presumed to be notable based on what they are involved in, but rather if it meets the Wikipedia criteria. Per Wikipedia, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article lacks non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and this is not enough convincing to actually keep with no better signs of applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also does not meet WP:AUTHOR. (One book, self-published.) LaMona (talk) 22:44, 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 List of Autobots. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkpoint (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Autobots. Mathewignash (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of Autobots. The merge should only include sourced information that would benefit the target list article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 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 Transformers:_Dark_of_the_Moon#Autobots. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brains (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep or Merge to Transformers:_Dark_of_the_Moon#Autobots. Mathewignash (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 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 and redirect to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cab (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. Mathewignash (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters There is nothing to merge except un-sourced WP:OR which will not benefit anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 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 List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Road King (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. Mathewignash (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Fenton[edit]

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

Non-notable author of non-notable fiction books. Article created six years ago by an SPA with spammy tendencies. (edit:) The only two Refs are to bookstore listings, plus an external link to the author's personal webpage. Alsee (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack any source other than maybe his own website that gives anything even appraoching biographical data. No evidence anyone has even ever done a brief review of his books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches simply found nothing better and the article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Published by "regular" publishers, but no reviews (e.g. not even booklist, PW, Kirkus), and hardly found in any libraries. Pretty much zero commercial or social impact, I'd say. LaMona (talk) 22:50, 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 speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per WP:G7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woodturning Lathes in the North American Market[edit]

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

List of non-notable woodturning lathes. This seems more like a buyer's guide than an encyclopedia article. IagoQnsi (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I put this listing together to inform both potential buyers as well as people simply interested in woodturning lathes. It's a listing article not dissimilar to Pokemon characters or anti-virus software. What improvements can I make to make the article more suitable for Wikipedia? List_of_Pokémon_characters DavidPx (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In wikipedia, lists are navigation tools for wikipedia topics. As a rule they are lists of wikipedia articles. Yours is not. Wikipeida is not a directory. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-encyclopedic purpose of the list. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Altenmann, thanks for the link to the "not a directory" explanation, I guess this article does indeed violate that rule. Go ahead and remove the article. DavidPx (talk) 17:38, 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glow of Hope[edit]

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

I see no evidence of major critical attention to this painting DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches only found expected mentions at Books, News and WP:INDAFD, nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it looks like someone's thesis/essay about the painting. Maximum, make it shorter and merge to Sawlaram Haldankar Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a highly notable painting, and the pride of the museum. We need to search harder for references as there are systemic reasons these tend not to be in English and online. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 9 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) 01:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it's not being disputed that it has its own room at the museum someone there obviously finds it notable. Sparafucil (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep reasonable artistic notability verified. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm with DGG and Arthistorian1977 on this one. Lots of paintings have their own nook in a museum. Fails WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable painting. More searches need to be conducted in Indian languages other than English and in printed works. Has anyone examined printed works from the 1940's or 50's? AusLondonder (talk) 23:42, 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 no consensus. Consensus to keep is less than overwhelming, but there are some sources, and there is certainly no consensus to delete. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Wolfe (nutritionist)[edit]

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

Initially I was thinking that this article may be salvagable, but reading it through, almost all of the citations, even those critical of Wolfe, are to blogs, his own websites and or commercial sites. I think it's best if we WP:BLOWITUP and start over, if reliable sources can be found that establish this guy as notable. SarrCat ∑;3 03:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retain While we are not here to promote Wolfe, he and his ideas are notable. Less-than-ideal sourcing is only a problem on Wikipedia where we choose to make it an issue. One of the major weaknesses of Wikipedia is this tendency to delete and/or marginalize the alternative or unconventional. Regards, Glacier2009 (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am perfectly willing to help improve this article if I can find reliable sources, my proposal for deletion is merely because the article is currently such a mishmash of bad sourcing, that I was thinking deleting it and starting over may well be a better course of action. SarrCat ∑;3 03:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Rawson, Sharnee (2013-05-22). "Raw ambition". Nationwide News Pty Limited (News Corp). Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  A star of the super foods world, David Wolfe is on a global mission
  "Growing your own food is an amazing idea - it's like printing money"
  Fat makes us fat, dairy is essential for healthy bones, and wheat-based carbs should be the main component of our daily diets - these are just some of the nutritional "truths" coming under increasing scrutiny.
  Questioning the mainstream is nothing new to David Wolfe, the American raw food advocate who has spent 20 years telling women to eat more chocolate. Born in New York and now living in LA, David, 42, is probably the world's most famous raw foodie. Australians are about to witness his ability to whip audiences into a frenzy over something as simple as eating an orange.
  Nailing down exactly what David - who gave up legal studies to pursue nutrition - does is tricky. He is the author of eight books on superfoods and nutrition, runs a cacao orchard and raw chocolate company, and takes adventure tours around the globe. While in Australia this month and next, he'll lead a raw food retreat in Kakadu and chair conferences in state capitals.
  From http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=22239265:
  Nationwide News Pty Limited publishes news on print, digital, mobile, tablet, and NIM platforms. It offers The Australian, a daily national publication with early general news, business, life, recruitment, sport, arts, and classifieds sections; The Weekend Australian, a weekly national newspaper; theaustralian.com.au, a Website that informs and leads public opinion on the issues that affect Australians; The Australian Tablet App, which gives readers a virtual experience of the newspaper; and m.theaustralian.com.au, a mobile site that delivers The Australian to the audience on mobile phones. Nationwide News Pty Limited was formerly known as Hill Corner Pty. Limited. The company was founded in 1964 and is based in Surry Hills, Australia. Nationwide News Pty Limited operates as a subsidiary of News Corporation.
2. Dengate, Cayla (2011-02-22). "Raw talent". mX. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Healthy living advocate David Wolfe balances the wild side with the mild side, as CAYLA DENGATE reports
  Who would take health advice from a guy who eats powdered yams and thinks chocolate should be bitter?
  Woody Harrelson, for one. And he's not alone.
  Superfood crusader David Wolfe is in Australia, holding workshops on raw food, healthy chocolate and living well.
  The American dietitian lives on a farm called Noni Land in Hawaii, surrounded by vegan warrior workers who tend to exotic plants he's collected from South America, Asia and Europe.
  When Harrelson needed to shape up for Rampart, he asked Wolfe for a hand.
3. Skidmore, Sarah (2005-06-04). "Raw-food fervor starting to sprout: Nature's First Law is feeding followers". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  And at the uncooked heart of it all, are San Diego natives David Wolfe and Thor Bazler, the founders of Nature's First Law.
  Together, they've created a multimillion-dollar business and source of raw gospel nationwide. Their El Cajon company sells specialty food, information and products to support living raw.
  ...
  Wolfe discovered the alternative way of eating when he attended the University of California Santa Barbara. He began experimenting with nutrition to help with his sensitivity to certain foods and eventually discovered raw eating.
  He introduced his childhood friend Bazler, then known as Stephen Arlin, to the diet. The two Patrick Henry High School graduates, who had grown up across the street from each other, now swear by a 100 percent raw diet of organic, unprocessed, plant-based food.
  ...
  Ten years later, the aspirations paid off. They have 23 employees and their company is on target to exceed $6 million in revenue this year. Profits were at least $1.2 million last year, Bazler said. Popular organic retailer Whole Foods is adding Nature's First Law products to its stores.
4. Stumpe, Joe (2004-04-21). "The raw truth? Decide for yourself". The Wichita Eagle. Archived from the original on 2004-05-05. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  The raw food movement hasn't caught on yet in quite the same way as, say, low-carb diets and bottled water.
  But I defy any food movement anywhere to produce a more colorful spokesman than David Wolfe.
  Wolfe is, as he says, "a raw foodist, nudist and Buddhist." The 33-year-old Californian also stars in a reality series on the Sci-Fi Channel and plays drums in a rock band that tours the country in a vegetable oil-powered bus.
  ...
  Wolfe said his band, The Healing Waters, doesn't take itself too seriously, either. Their songs include "Raw Food Girl" (about the bass player's ex-girlfriend), "Bye Bye Burger World" and "Jonathan's the Name" (about a raw food-eating, cross-dressing biker). I told him Kirby's was a good venue for that sort of thing.
  Wolfe's TV show is called "Mad Mad House" and features five "alternative lifestyle" landlords sharing a house with 10 guests vying for a $100,000 prize. Wolfe is actually pretty tame compared with the other "alts," who include a witch, a vampire and a voodoo priestess.
  It was from the show's Web site, by the way, that I learned Wolfe prefers to be called by his nickname, "Avocado."
5. Han, Esther (2013-05-28). "A breath of fresh flair - raw food". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  An American guru of all things unprocessed has seen a niche interest turn into a global movement.
  David Wolfe has a habit of giving an answer the opposite of what is expected. Ask him about the neo-raw-food movement, and he describes it as "ancient, old and nothing new".
  Ask the American nutritionist about the modern Western diet of refined sugars, additives and processed foods, and he replies: "The dietary chaos we're in right now is actually very good."
  Let him explain: "We're finding out what doesn't work and what does. We're opening up new pathways of knowledge. Without crisis, there's no opportunity."
  Wolfe is one of the world's leading proponents of raw food, advocating a lifestyle of consuming only unprocessed and uncooked food. He overhauled his diet 20 years ago, changing to raw, plant-based foods.
  Raw foodism, as the movement is called, involves a diet of organic or wild foods, along with the so-called "superfoods" (see panel).
  Wolfe champions superfoods such as goji berries, hemp seed and blue-green algae, which he believes have helped him sustain a busy lifestyle touring the world promoting natural and organic living.
6. Fuller, Sharon (2001-11-02). "Raw Food Diet Is Anything But Half-Baked Idea". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  It was standing-room only for more than 70 people recently when David Wolfe came to speak about eating raw food.
  ...
  Wolfe is author of "The Sunfood Diet Success System," which essentially details his strategies for eating only raw. He started his lecture at the Wild Oats Community market in Ladue by explaining that people will eat anything. Like the guy who once ate an airplane by grinding the parts into powder. The same guy supposedly ate a television, too.
  Wolfe has been eating only raw foods for seven years. At one time, he says, he treated his body like an amusement park, meaning he ate everything from pepperoni pizza to carbonated sodas. A provocative speaker with a flawless complexion, the 31-year-old Missouri native appears to be at least a visual testament to the benefits of eating raw.
  ...
  In 1995 Wolfe and Stephen Arlin co-founded Nature's First Law Inc., which distributes books, juicers and bulk organic foods. Perhaps the ultimate indulgence would be to participate in one of the raw foods vacations that the organization sponsors. Upcoming ones will be held in India and Bali.
7. Shriver, Jerry (2002-04-26). "Healthful, raw-food trend is picking up steam". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  A just-released book from raw-food guru David Wolfe, Eating for Beauty (Maul Brothers Publishing, $24.95), promotes the raw-food diet as part of a wellness/beauty regimen.
  ...
  Wolfe estimates that at least 1 million people in the USA embrace some aspect of the raw-food diet, based upon traffic at various Web sites and the 100,000-plus copies of his book, The Sunfood Diet Success System, that have been sold since 1999.
8. "Healthy hearts and souls". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 2006-09-15. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  The IBPA said David Wolfe of Nature's First Law, an expert on raw foods, will appear 11 a.m. Saturday as part of the health and wellness fair. Wolfe is the author of "Eating for Beauty," "The Sunfood Diet Success System" and "Naked Chocolate." Nature's First Law is a distributor of books, juicers/audio/videotapes, organic beauty products, bulk organic foods and exotic raw foods.
9. Oliveira, Denise (2008-04-18). "Can chocolate help your skin?". Cape Cod Times. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  David Wolfe, of San Diego, Calif., co-author of the book "Naked Chocolate," has gained a reputation as a raw nutrition expert and leader of a raw chocolate movement in the United States that has had rippling effects abroad.
  Back in 2004, when Wolfe could not find raw cocoa beans for purchase in the United States, he started importing them from Hawaii and Ecuador through Sunfood Nutrition, a company set up to sell raw foods and related products.
  "I couldn't believe the most popular food in the world, in its original form, was impossible to get," said Wolfe, 37, who has a law degree and a master's in vegan and live food nutrition from the University of Integrative Science California.
10. "How To ... Use chocolate for your skin". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 2008-04-15. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  David Wolfe, of San Diego, co-author of the book "Naked Chocolate," has gained a reputation as a raw nutrition expert and leader of a raw chocolate movement in the United States.
  According to Wolfe, raw cocoa butter delivers the essential elements of the raw cocoa to the skin, such as vitamins and anti-oxidants, because the butter consists of oils that have such small particles that they can penetrate even the smallest of pores.
11. "600 Pages of raw material". Toronto Star. 1999-12-03. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Can't cook or don't want to be bothered? Have we got a diet for you. David Wolfe, author of The Sunfood Diet Success System (Maul Bros. Publishing, $29.95), hasn't eaten cooked food in five years. He eats only organic, raw, vegetarian food. Or, in the words of his publicist, Sequoia Neptune, Wolfe is promoting "raw plant-food-based lifestyles." In the 600-page volume you'll find the Gall Bladder Flush: Fast 3 days on raw fresh apple juice; on day 4, at 3 p.m., break the fast with 8 oz. of cold-pressed olive oil; follow with 8 oz. of freshly squeezed lemon juice.
12. Herrmann, Andrew (2008-10-18). "City in a garden gets an orchard - 24 trees may yield fruit by next year". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  The orchard was a donation from Absolut vodka under the direction of the Fruit Tree Planting Foundation, a San Diego-based charity that aims to plant 18 billion fruit trees across the world.
  The foundation was started by David Wolfe, a raw food guru and best-selling author.
13. Takahama, Valerie (1999-04-23). "The Raw Deal – Health. Practitioners say eating uncooked fruits, vegetables and grains raises their energy and improves their lives". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  On Monday, there were dueling raw-food gatherings, with the charismatic raw-food firebrand David Wolfe speaking at the Living Lighthouse at the same time that Brian Clement, director of the venerable Hippocrates Health Institute in West Palm Beach, Fla.,and Nomi Shannon, author of "The Raw Gourmet," held forth at O2.
14. Davenport, Kristen (2005-08-07). "Some Like It Raw ..." The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  As if it weren't enough that chocolate tastes good.
  Now raw food guru David Wolfe says it's good for you, too.
  Wolfe, whose book Naked Chocolate was released in April, says all you have to do is eat chocolate in its natural form: raw, untreated, naked cacao.
  ...
  Wolfe, 34, has been eating 100-percent raw foods for 11 years. Author of The Sunfood Diet Success System, he teaches across the United States, Canada, Europe and the South Pacific, following an annual tour of classes and speaking events. When he's not traveling, Wolfe lives in California, where he tutors celebrities such as Alicia Silverstone and Woody Harrelson on the raw-food diet.
  Wolfe stopped by Albuquerque last year on a national tour to promote raw chocolate; he might swing by the Land of Enchantment next year, too, he says.
15. Bain, Jennifer (2000-11-29). "Raw foodist awed by Toronto's bounty". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Raw foodist David Wolfe gingerly unwraps a spiky, 4-kilogram durian and exhales with anticipation at the sight of cracks on the bottom of its thick brown shell.
  ...
  Wolfe a raw food expert and author who was in Toronto last week to speak on radical nutrition at the Whole Life Expo confesses to spending $120 (U.S.) on durian in Toronto in four days.
  He lives in San Diego, where you can get fresh durian for only about one month a year. He calls durian the king of the fruit, for its balance of fat and sugar. His queen is the vitamin C and potassium-rich mangosteen. Vitamin-infused kale is the king of the veggies, while calming cucumber is the queen veggie.
  ...
  Fun for Wolfe, 30, is enjoying the work of raw chefs. The Fressen meal "was just outrageous it was so good."
  He envies Torontonians for the "amazing variety of food that's here," and says there's less selection in California because of the farm lobby.
  Wolfe, who stops in Toronto once a year on the global lecture circuit, indulges his fruit obsession wherever he can.
16. Schroedter, Andrew (2004-04-29). "Raw food, grease power this crew". Glencoe News. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  David Wolfe believes his raw food message has made him an enemy of big oil companies and maybe some fast-food establishments as well.
  That notion may be somewhat of a stretch, but a contingent of Wolfe backers believe the California nutritionist is riding the wave of the future, using the Internet, lectures and books to communicate the health and fitness benefits derived from a strict diet of uncooked food.
  Several times a year, Wolfe travels with his rock-and-roll band to places like New York City, Chicago, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Michigan, Maryland and Toronto.
  ...
  For Wolfe and his Healing Waters Band, it's more about ingesting large quantities of super foods, such as wolf berries, maca root, hemp seeds, Spirulina and bottles of oxygen water.
  ...
  Wolfe, 33, has authored two books on raw food nutrition, and leads more than 100 seminars and retreats on the topic throughout the year. Over the weekend, Wolfe came to Chicago to speak about detoxification and healthy eating.
17. Griffin, John (2002-08-21). "Uncooked food trend raises hopes, casts doubts". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  David Wolfe, author of "The Sunfood Diet Success System," says that pesticides are so prevalent in our environment that "they accumulate in the tissues of animals." To eat them raw would be unnecessarily risky, he says.
  ...
  Wolfe, who has eaten only raw food for the last eight years, has positioned himself as the movement's Anthony Robbins. He no longer talks of "tortured and murdered foul rotting flesh" (Juliano's description of meat). He takes a positive approach, preferring to discuss how "educating and empowering the individual" about raw food cleanses the body and leads to greater energy and vitality.
  Wolfe doesn't talk of missing cooked or processed foods. There are no references to chocolate cravings or Twinkee withdrawal. Instead, he talks of how many new foods there are to savor, such as goji berries from Tibet or cassia discs, so many items, in fact, that there's no time for cooked food.
18. Beckett, Fiona (2002-08-10). "Take the heat out of eating". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  It's 7 o'clock on a cool, grey summer evening and it's standing room only in the lecture theatre of Regent's College in London. Not quite the weather for extolling the virtues of raw food, but that's what the 150-strong audience has come to hear about.
  The draw is America's leading raw food guru, a slight, wild-eyed, wild-haired figure called David Wolfe. When I meet him before the lecture, he's soft-spoken, humorous, a model of restraint. On the platform he holds the audience mesmerised with an evangelistic three-hour presentation, alternately gabbling then dropping his voice to emphasise a point.
  ...
  Wolfe isn't a lone voice. There have been advocates of a diet largely based on raw foods since the beginning of the last century, when Dr Bircher-Benner set up his famous clinic in Switzerland. Raw food has also long been advocated for cancer patients. Leslie Kenton made it fashionable in the 1990s and juicing raw fruits and vegetables has taken off in the past five years.
19. Rawson, Sharnee (2013-05-22). "Raw ambition". Nationwide News Pty Limited (News Corp). Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  A star of the super foods world, David Wolfe is on a global mission
  "Growing your own food is an amazing idea - it's like printing money"
  ...
  Questioning the mainstream is nothing new to David Wolfe, the American raw food advocate who has spent 20 years telling women to eat more chocolate. Born in New York and now living in LA, David, 42, is probably the world's most famous raw foodie. Australians are about to witness his ability to whip audiences into a frenzy over something as simple as eating an orange.
  Nailing down exactly what David - who gave up legal studies to pursue nutrition - does is tricky. He is the author of eight books on superfoods and nutrition, runs a cacao orchard and raw chocolate company, and takes adventure tours around the globe. While in Australia this month and next, he'll lead a raw food retreat in Kakadu and chair conferences in state capitals.
20. Krum, Sharon (2003-09-06). "All steamed up about raw food - Food & Drink". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  But the prize for hyperbole -and for the best non sequitur -surely goes to the Californian David Wolfe, a self-taught nutritionist and co-author of Nature's First Law: The Raw-Food Diet, who toured England in July, spreading the message: "Nietzsche said God is dead; we say, cooked food is poison!"
  Addressing 200 people a night, in Leeds, Manchester, Brighton and London, Wolfe delivered his standard lesson in raw foods: heat destroys the natural enzymes in food needed for digestion, forcing your body to use its own enzymes to absorb food, he claims. This process wears the body down and accelerates disease and ageing. Raw foodies cook nothing past 46C (115F), the point at which enzymes begin to die.
  Wolfe then promised the curious that, if they weaned themselves off fish and chips, milk and meat, and embraced fruit, vegetables, nuts, green foods, "superfoods" (spirulina and algae) and sprouts, their excess weight and chronic illnesses would disappear.
Articles that discuss or mention Sacred Chocolate, the company he founded:
1. Thym, Jolene (2009-03-18). "Picky Eater: Chocolate, chocolate and more chocolate". Tri-Valley Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Ramping up for the massive affair, chocolate companies have been dumping chocolate on my desk, hoping to convince me to stop by for a chocolate-chat. I tried ethereal hot chocolate from Chocolatique, chunks of exotic chocolate from TCHO, interesting chocolate raw chocolate bars from Sacred Steve (who probably wears Birkenstocks) at Sacred Chocolate, yummy chocolate brownie truffles laced with rose petals from Serendipity Chocolates, single-origin bars from Amano, a nutty, triangular shaped truffle bar from Sterling Confections, and even some sweet Muscat wines from Quady in Madera that are perfect for sipping alongside chocolate.
2. Harlib, Leslie (2008-02-13). "IJ Weekend: Indulge your dark side with upscale chocolates". Marin Independent Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Chocolates are also going green, organic and raw. Steve Adler, whose line called Sacred Chocolate, made in San Rafael, launched in 2006, now turns out up to 15,000 bars a month. Sacred bars are made from beans (with their skins) grown in Ecuador and roasted at 114 degrees so they retain their enzymes as a raw food. The bars range in cacao content from 60 percent to 100 percent. He sweetens only with organic maple syrup. All bars are made with skin-on beans. One bar is flavored with organic black sage harvested in Marin.
  Adler sees chocolate as a "super food. When it's eaten in its raw form, it's actually an appetite suppressant."
  ...
  Sacred Chocolate
  1-800-628-8729, www.naturaw.com.
  Founded by Fairfax resident Steve Adler in autumn 2006 and produced in San Rafael, these raw chocolate bars are made with organic, fair trade-grown cacao. They are certified vegan, kosher and halal, sweetened with organic maple syrup, not sugar. "We do something that no other chocolatier in the world is doing as far as I know - using the whole bean, including the skins," Adler says. "Our antioxidant value is through the roof." Bar flavors include Wild Amazonian jungle peanut; black sage with rose oil; Pacific Paradise with nutmeg and kava, and plain chocolate bars with cacao butter content ranging from 60 to 100 percent. Order online.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow David Wolfe to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although informative and apparently large this article may seem, simply nothing suggests a better solidly notable article. Delete at best because none of this currently satisfies any applicable notability. Asking DGG for familiar analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Please note that per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Does your !vote consider the sources posted in this discussion?

Delete. no possible notability, even as a crank. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: If the subject has "no possible notability", then why have several reliable sources provided significant coverage about the subject? I have provided a consolidated /concise summary of such sources that provide significant coverage in my !vote below in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The comments from SwisterTwister and DGG fail to explain why the sources I provided above are insufficient to establish notability. The sources span newspapers from different countries: Australia (The Sydney Morning Herald), Canada (Toronto Star), the United Kingdom (The Daily Telegraph and The Times), the United States (USA Today, Chicago Sun-Times, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch). The sources were published between 1999 and 2013, demonstrating sustained coverage of the subject.
Here are two book sources about the subject:
1. Iacobbo, Karen; Iacobbo, Michael (2006). Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 48–49. ISBN 0275990168. Retrieved 2016-03-25.
  The book notes:
  
  David Wolfe, arguably the most popular promoter of raw foods in the Western world, states:
  [quote]
  Wolfe, who has eaten an all-raw foods diet since 1995, recommends that most people should eat 80 percent raw organic food "because that is easy to do for most people and is, in fact, good enough." The king of raw has made it his mission to "make raw-food nutrition an option for anyone on the planet." He has two Web sites—www.rawfood.com and www.davidwolfe.com—and several books (Naked Chocolate, Eating for Beauty, The Sunfood Diet Success System), and has made numerous television and radio appearances, and public lectures.
  A May 2, 2005, appearance on Coast-to-Coast AM radio exposed Wolfe to about 15 millions, resulting in a flood of hits to his Web sites and spreading recognition.
2. Goldstein, Myrna Chandler; Goldstein, Mark A. (2009). Food and Nutrition Controversies Today: A Reference Guide. Westport, Connecticut: ABC-CLIO. pp. 200–201. ISBN 0313354030. Retrieved 2016-03-25.
  The book notes:
  
  In an interview published in 2003 in Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, David Wolfe, one of the leaders in the world of raw foodists, said that during his childhood he ate everything. Meat, cheese, bread, fast food, and homemade food were all part of his diet. By the age of eighteen, Wolfe could no longer tolerate dairy products, so he stopped consuming them. Almost immediately, he "lost ten pounds, felt lighter, could think clearer, and instantly ended a lifetime of ear trouble."
  Soon, Wolfe began a quest to learn more about nutrition. He also started juicing and eating organic foods. Eventually, Wolfe became a vegetarian, and by the time he was twenty-four, he "was on a totally organic, raw-food diet." Wolfe is now devoted to educating others about the importance of proper nutrition, lecturing, writing books, and running a number of raw food-related businesses.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is clearly met. SwisterTwisters' "none of this currently satisfies any applicable notability" comment and DGG's "no possible notability" comment are unsupported by the numerous sources.

Cunard (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I think he is probably notable and quite possibly an utter charlatan, I also think that virtually all of what is in the article at present needs to go, so perhaps we should delete it per WP:TNT and start again based on reliable sources. I'm not even convinced that he is a nutritionist, which surely requires qualifications? --Michig (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of this passes the ten-year test. Notability derived from Coast-to-Coast AM radio is far from scholarly. Please note that I (had no prior knowledge of Wolf and) tried to clean up this article and find reliable sources for a few days before making this vote. Kyle^(talk) 17:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Khamar: There's no "ten-year test" to demonstrate notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NTEMP, where it states that "notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This notability is Recentism. I agree that even diet fads can be notable, but I suspect a higher standard applies here. My vote is in favor of balance and historical perspective. There is no rush, history will determine a proper place for this article. Additional editor comments and proper sources will resolve the issue. Kyle^(talk) 01:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support an overhaul of article sourcing and layout, or deleting and starting over with different sources. Cunard has demonstrated credible, reliable sources to establish notability. Let's not make Wolfe the issue; even if we don't like or agree with him, he is notable. Glacier2009 (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(a cautious keep) He is notable enough for a Wikipedia page. BUT I think that probably starting over with the most notable citations, then see where that gets us. I did not look in detail at Cunard's citations, so bow to others wisdom if they did look them over. I'm not sure who volunteered to rewrite this page, but I call "not it".Sgerbic (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit – The subject passes WP:BASIC. Here's some of the sources listed above and from the article that serve to denote that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Some of the delete !votes above come across as possibly basing notability upon subjective standards, rather than WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The Union-Tribune source found by NA confirms no qualification in nutrition, so if kept the title needs to be changed. You don't become a nutritionist by pushing diets. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: This source refers to the subject as a nutritionist: "the nutritionist and best-selling author ...". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well...it seems that in some countries anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, but yes, sources support it. I still think some other disambiguation may be more appropriate. --Michig (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A large number of potential sources have been presented, but not widely accepted. Despite the significant discussion to date, if I had to close this today, it would be as NC. I think it's worth keeping the discussion open another week to see if we can get better clarity on what kinds of sources we're looking for, and why the ones presented do or do not meet that standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am fine with renaming the article "David Wolfe (raw foodist)." I merely called him a "nutritionist" because the previous article "raw foodist" was deleted. Glacier2009 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep - a reasonable article about a notable crank. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 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 redirect to Miss Universe Sweden. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonore Lilja[edit]

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

Article is about a person who fails notability guidelines. Only one news article about her participation in Miss International: http://laodong.com.vn/van-hoa/lo-thi-huong-tram-co-tao-nen-bat-ngo-ky-dieu-tai-miss-international-165698.bld and articles about her being disqualified from Top Model Sverige: https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=6yjiVtaNHavS8AfW2IH4Aw#tbm=nws&q=%22eleonore+lilja%22 Linguist 111^talk 02:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough independent sources to write a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article size is not a reason for deletion. Notability is based on quite the opposite actually. BabbaQ (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, none of this seems to suggest better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not based on article size or quality. It is based on the notability guidelines. which she passes.BabbaQ (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she has won a national beauty title and participated in a international Big4 pageant. She has also participated in Top Model show in Sweden. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two users !voting delete are wrong based on WP:GNGs own critera: Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Article quality of size is not a reason for deletion. BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article also covers all aspects of the General notability guideline section. BabbaQ (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a competitor in the Miss International contest is not enough to be notable, and being kicked off a reality television show even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a national winner for a international Big4 pageant is. Being a competitor of a reality model series as a model is notable. Even more so when she had a controversial exit. Plenty of good sources. She is covered by WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Another option could be to redirect to Miss Universe Sweden (and preserve the article's history under the redirect), which may be preferable to deletion. Linguist 111^talk 17:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polytrothism[edit]

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

If this is deleted then Polytrothism should be removed from template {{Close_plural_relationships}}.

Dictionary definition. Tagged zero-sources for 7 years, Neologism. Alsee (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:GNG. Rebb ing 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:06, 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 ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KayKay Amponsah[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Another musician from Ghana with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:50, 12 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£} 15:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 01:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--yeah, there's just no coverage here, except for that award he didn't get. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree, just nowhere near enough to meet WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abena Agyeman-Fisher[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Columnist are not notable simply because they have a page on their employer's website. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:42, 12 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£} 15:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News, Books and browser found links but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same pattern: subject writes for many journals, many mentions, little coverage. It is unlikely that there are foreign-language sources about the subject as she lives in the US. Esquivalience ^t 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly not notable.Masterofroks (talk) 12:46, 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 speedily deleted by Diannaa per CSD G5 (creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hargreaves[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, no substantial coverage found through Google searches even though the article claims notability. GAB^Hello! 14:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : this has been speedydeleted by admin due to creation by a banned or blocked user. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:55, 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 merge to Mad Lion. czar 16:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real Ting[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the Allmusic source in the article mentions, this was a collaboration with KRS-One - this may have helped it generate more coverage back in the day. Could help with source hunting. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are two questions here - firstly is it notable? Second, do we have enough content to justify an article? I think a good case could be made for notability. It topped both the Billboard heatseekers chart ([28]) and the Top Reggae Albums chart ([29]) as well as placing at no. 114 on the Billboard 200, and also appears in a CMJ chart ([30]). This, however, can be summed up adequately in the article on the artist, so it then comes down to what other sources we can find. The Allmusic review is very brief, and other coverage that I found only mentions the album briefly ([31], [32], [33]). Again, there's nothing here that cannot be covered adequately in the Mad Lion article, so unless more can be found I think a selective merge and redirect to Mad Lion would be the best outcome. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this seems best, the article is questionably notable by itself and is of course likely best known through Mad Lion's article. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 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 12:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mad Lion, per Michig's analysis above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The two "keep" opinions are not based on policy or guidelines, i.e., on the existence and quality of relevant sources. Sandstein 10:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Mayclem[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG as coverage is small and localised. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's certainly coverage, but like the nom says, it's very local. For example: [34] from KQED and [35] from SF Weekly. He seems to have been nominated for an Regional Emmy in 2001 (warning, PDF file) and won in 2015 (warning, another PDF file). I assume that a Regional Emmy would satisfy WP:ANYBIO criterion #1, but does it matter that it's a Regional Emmy? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, I asked at WT:TV whether a regional Emmy satisfies WP:ANYBIO #1, and nobody responded. So, I guess that means I'll have to use my own judgment. I say... yes. But I'm open to counter-arguments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as simply none of this solidly satisfies the applicable notability, still questionable for better improvements and there's nothing convincing to solidly keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 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 12:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known in California. Needs more work but should not be deleted.Bruriyah (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area and I never heard of him, but in any case claiming that he is "well known" without proof via sources isn't sufficient. The sources here, by the way, are really poor. The source that supposedly supports the statement about local emmy's does not mention emmys nor him (except in a photo caption). The two about the Opera event are the same article run in different papers, and it's nothing but a name check. Then there are two interviews - one in which he is the interviewer (and does not inherit notability from the interviewee, BTW) and the other in which he is the interviewee. Neither support notability. And the Fong-Torres article is another namecheck, describing an event he attended where he happened to be attending with Mayclem. So nada, bupkis, niente. A search in the SF Chronicle does pull up articles with his name, but again they are only mentions. LaMona (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A regional Emmy doesn't mean notability. That an editor claims someone is well-known doesn't mean much here. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, coverage is purely local with only the regional Emmy. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. and move to Death of Dawn Brancheau. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Brancheau[edit]

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

There has been a lot of discussion about weather this article should be deleted, redirected or merged. We need a consensus. I think that since she is mainly known for one event that it should redirect.*Treker (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment I would like say that since some editors have done a great job of finding relevant information that shows that Brancheau's death did have some significant effects, even outside of seaworld, that I've reconsidered my position and agree that the article should be moved to Death of Dawn Brancheau.*Treker (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This animal trainer was indeed murdered by one of her animals, who happens to be independently notable, in 2010. But she was a somewhat notable animal trainer before that: the article features a picture of her in 2006, as well as a news interview from 2000.[36] Her death has had a lasting legacy (which a click on the "news" link above confirms in the last week alone[37]) in part by spawning a notable documentary (Blackfish (film)). Dawn Brancheau wasn't just some random tourist who fell into a shark tank and as such WP:1E should not apply; this plainly isn't a case for which that policy was created. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tilikum (orca) - Almost all information regarding this individual appeared AFTER the event that made her notable. The fact that she was featured in local news reports could be just as much about her being in the right place at the right time (that is, working when the news cameras showed up). This is clearly a memorial article fork from the article where her notoriety is derived; almost all the cited information in the article came from the Tilikum article, and that which isn't already there can easily be added. The uncited information is intended to memorialize the victim, not provide any information as to their notability outside of the event that put her name in the papers, so to speak. Further, Kendrick7's word choice above seems to suggest an agenda that wouldn't be compatible with a neutral encyclopedia. This article is unnecessary by both WP:1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. --McDoob AU93 14:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@McDoobAU93: I agree that the "memorial" aspects of the page need to be cleaned up. Feel free to remove any uncited information; you don't need the permission of an WP:AFD process to do so. All I did was revert the blanking of the page, and then provide additional sources, where I could, after demands for better sourcing on the talk page. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater; WP:SOFIXIT. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But if you "clean up" the memorial aspect of it, all you're left with is the single event, which mostly duplicates the incident's coverage at Tilikum (orca). That makes this a POV fork, which also is highly against Wikipedia guidelines. --McDoob AU93 14:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This animal trainer is notable because she was killed by Tilikum and for being featured in Blackfish. Because there are two major events, I think the article should be kept. However, the article needs to be more encyclopedic. I helped the article a little bit, but it is a start-class article. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. The second event is a film chronicle that includes the first event, and most likely would have not existed without the first event. Had the second event been standalone, maybe. But the two are inextricably linked. My continued issue is that the information before her death is still uncited and the info of and after her death already is in the two articles you mentioned, Tilikum (orca) and Blackfish. What here is new and establishes notability outside of the one event? --McDoob AU93 18:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:1E: The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. I'm not sure there exists a much larger media spotlight than a world-renowned documentary.

BTW, the very first ref is from 2006, so your contention that "information before her death is still uncited" isn't quite true, as she was killed in 2010. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "reference" is a photograph that could have been of ANY trainer, depending on the performance schedule that day and when the photographer visited the park. Nothing in the photograph or its history suggests that the photographer was actively seeking out the trainer because of any perceived fame. In other words, frankly, it does NOTHING to satisfy notability prior to the incident with which she is indelibly connected. As a parallel, consider Flydubai Flight 981. There is a photograph in the infobox of the aircraft that was involved in the crash that was taken about five years prior. Does that make the airframe notable, since a photograph existed of it prior to the incident to which it is indelibly connected? Or, is it simply that someone happened to be at an airport and snapped a picture of a departing aircraft, and its registration just happened to match that of the aircraft in the crash?

As to the "individual's role", nothing has been established to suggest that her role was anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, thus making 1E VERY important. Plus, NOTMEMORIAL is still a major problem, since when all the uncited information is removed, all that's left is what's already in two other articles. Again, there is NOTHING here that can't be found in the two articles already mentioned. Anyone actively searching for Brancheau should be directed to Tilikum (orca), since without the incident, nobody would know who she is.

--McDoob AU93 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously comparing a dead human being to an airplane? She wasn't "in the wrong place at the wrong time", she was doing her job. Which, again, prior-to-her-death references attest to.[38] -- Kendrick7^talk 00:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop attaching a bunch of emotions to this. Try being objective. It doesn't matter if the article is about an airplane or a person. If she isn't notable outside of her death and she should not have her own separate article. Everything in this article that is of value could be in the Tilikum or Blackfish articles. A few interviews prior to her death doesn't prove that she was anything else than a reasonably well known seaworld employee who got the chance to be interviewed because she had an unusual job, and even if she was mildly notable why should we have another article which just repeats the same information? If you can find more information about why she was important to seaworld while alive maybe this article would have a case for existing.*Treker (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an emotional appeal to say that human beings are just as important as films and zoo animals. Yes, some of these details do already appear in both Blackfish (film) and Tilikum (orca). But per WP:NOTPAPER, I believe I'm only making an appeal to reason. You can't argue WP:1E while insisting her biographical details could be merged into either of 2 different events. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it's without a doubt an emotional appeal to bring up the fact that she's human. She wasn't important and thus does not warrant an article. There are not two different events, it's one event and a film which focuses particularly on said event.*Treker (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tilikum (orca) as mentioned above, seems best known and best connected to that, this could be kept but it still seems questionably better aside from the current content. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tilikum Her only lasting notability is through her death by Tilikum. Her random appearance on some newscast before her death is not notable in the least. Anything that is notable about her is already covered in the Tilikum article. There is no reason to repeat the same information in a separate article since there is nothing innately notable about her life outside of her death by Tilikum.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She continues to be covered in the press. Bruriyah (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see solely for her death. Unless you've found something which shows that she was notable before that.*Treker (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What policy are you trying to apply here @*Treker:? because I assure you that you are doing it wrong. Yes, she's been lionized since her death, above and including events before her death. So what? WP:1E isn't about condemning rockstars, looked up to by children, to the dustbin of history. It's about if you were just some idiot who stepped in front of a bus one morning, and made more than one daily paper, and so you should get a Wikipedia article. Quit abusing the system. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not wrong to point out that someone who is only known for one event does not necessarily deserve their own article. As has already been said everything of value in this article can already be found in the Tilikum or Blackfish article.

I have no idea what the nonsense you wrote after that about rockstars have to do about anything. I'm not abusing the system. That's a ridiculous accusation. In my opinion she doesn't deserve an article and any of the things which this article has shown has disproved that at all.

All the talk about her being the poster girl of the company has come out after her death, maybe in heighsight it seems that she may have been slightly more important to the company than any of the other trainers but as far a as I can tell that still just proves to make this page a memorial piece.*Treker (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but per WP:ONEEVENT move over redirect to Death of Dawn Brancheau, trimming the biographical information that's unrelated to the event itself. I recognize that the event is covered in Tilikum (orca)#Third death, but enough has been written about this particular death to justify a separate article.

I sympathize with the feelings expressed by User: Kendrick7 and others, but this is not about Brancheau's "importance"; it is about her notability and the notability of her death, as Wikipedia uses the term. TJRC (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is here that is NOT in Tilikum (orca) or in Blackfish, and if there is something here, what is keeping it out of those articles? --McDoob AU93 22:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the continued insistence, by at times the same editor, that WP:1E should apply, but, also, that the subject's biography relates to multiple events, via which the subject's whole biography could thus be assembled, belies the underlying ineptitude of this entire discussion. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are not multiple events. There is one event which has been covered in a documentary. You are just as guilty of repeated comments as your opposition is. There is no ineptitude going on, it's a discussion with people coming with arguments but so far I don't see any evidence heavy enough to support that Brancheau should have an article.*Treker (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One event does not mean the subject is necessarily unworthy of an article. There is (plenty) significant coverage, not only from the time of the event but ongoing, continuing coverage many years later. Meets gng thoroughly. Jacona (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But when there is a single event the article is about said event not the person it happened to and pretty much all of this information already exists in the Tilikum and Blackfish articles.*Treker (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That probably means the Dawn Brancheau article should be expanded. Jacona (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except there doesn't seem to be much of note. This discussion has been going on for a while even before the deletion tag was added. I urge the people who want the article to remain to actually find reliable sources that prove that she did anything of note before her death and the documentary that followed. Maybe I'm wrong and we just haven't found it.*Treker (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The foregoing keep arguments, including User:JaconaFrere, have it correct. WP:1E reads, unlike some element or factor based benchmarks, as a weighting benchmark. In addition to the death itself, material is available and should be included (I will try to do so in the next few days) that is reasonably distinct from her death itself: subsequently a groundbreaking legal situation arose regarding release or non-disclosure of the SeaWorld surveillance video and the crime scene investigative images.(refs:[39] and [40]) It has been contended that the post-mortem circumstances and legal arguments gave birth to Florida 406.136, passed in 2011.(2nd ref, and 2 others I am working through). This material is not a good fit for the suggested merge-to articles. Whether or not a rename of this article is appropriate need not be decided at AfD and would logically depend on the article situation after the additional content is integrated. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC) (updated: FeatherPluma (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

If this information is from reliable sources, and it has been posited by published sources (not interpreted by editors) that there is a direct correlation, then I would agree with an article rename to Death of Dawn Brancheau and all uncited material prior to the event removed. --McDoob AU93 20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@McDoobAU93: I confirm that the direct correlation that you wanted to confirm is explicitly asserted in the cited reliable sources: e.g. "The Florida law was adopted partly in response to the death of Dawn Brancheau in 2010." I have removed or sourced the previously uncited content and added appropriate cited content. I renamed the article. The corrected and expanded article is now 21010 bytes versus 8000 when I started. Given the change in opinion by 2 editors (altho the bolded !votes have not been updated), this AfD discussion has attained consensus in favor of article retention. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC) (edited: FeatherPluma (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Keep but rename/refocus to her death per WP:1E as the article subject's importance rests primarily on her death and its aftermath. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place for a move discussion is on the article talk page. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendrick7: Concur. (On the page renaming aspect, I am conflicted. AfD closure is not dependent on this, and in the interest of brevity in an AfD which has been open since March 19th, and which has otherwise attained consensus, it's reasonable to discuss this there if necessary.) FeatherPluma (talk) 00:25, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herbabolics[edit]

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

This is not a notable term. A google search turns up essentially nothing. The only reference cited in the article is clearly not a WP:RS. If there is anything to be said about natural alternatives to synthetic anabolic steroids, it can be said at anabolic steroid. ChemNerd (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable term as it does not appear to be in widespread use, as evidenced by the lack of reliable sources. So delete, as per WP:NEO. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I patrolled this at NPP and planned to nominate since all of this is questionably notable for clear notability and improvements, searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEO (which is a new one to me - always more to learn on WP). Edwardx (talk) 21:04, 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. I'm treating "Move to creator's userspace" as "delete" because we don't know whether the creator wants that. Sandstein 07:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For lack of a better comic[edit]

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

Non-notable web comic lacking non-trivial in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Paste Magazine reference gives the comic some weight. A quick Google Search returns a few articles from other websites talking about the comic. The article's existed for one day before being nominated - I think the subject could be notable enough for an article, and I suggest giving User:Williemuse (or someone else) more time to improve it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ - This is pretty weak, as two of the three sources [41] [42] available on the topic only dedicate one sentence to it. The third [43] has slightly more content, but hardly enough to really do much with it. I don't think Pleated Jeans, a source that is currently in use, is reliable, or if the content has any value whatsoever. Regardless, the article needs some real improvement. ~Mable (chat) 09:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - eh, this is a lost cause, there's really too little to work with. You need at least some dedicated coverage for a creative work. ~Mable (chat) 12:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm torn on this one. I've heard of this comic and its stuff is frequently reposted in places like GalleyCat and Dorkly, but there's not a lot out there as a whole that I've been able to find so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as searches simply found nothing else convincingly better and the article is still questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 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 12:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to creator's userspace. Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 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. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese Community at the National University of Singapore[edit]

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

Appears to be a (nationality based) student organisation in a university. No third party references can be found about it (fails WP:ORGDEPTH). Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CLUB, 22 results on Google and none of them are independent or reliable. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything worthwhile either. Fails WP:CLUB and WP:ORGDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National University of Singapore. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: I understand that you had removed my WP:PROD on this article and replaced it with a merge proposal. May I know what exactly can be merged from this article? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of the Organizations section in Template:National University of Singapore can be summarized in a new section in National University of Singapore. The lead of this article would provide material for the summary of this group. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge only if this best as I simply see no better convincing signs for keeping this article itself. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @SwisterTwister and Kvng: I just tried to see if I could merge it to the National University of Singapore article but I don't think it is possible. The group/club seems to have no independent citations which makes it hard for me to verify. The group is also not there in the list of organisation of the university [44], [45] and [46]. This seems like an unofficial group/gathering to me so I don't think I will be able to merge it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then at best as this was my original path as this is noticeably simply too questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Reid[edit]

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

Probably non-notable basketball player; I can find only one significant source [47] (just enough to avoid PRODBLP), otherwise only passing mentions of the subject, and for one game. Apparently the subject was the MVP of some minor tournament, but I am not sure if it point towards notability. Esquivalience ^t 18:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, there's also this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this seems to satisfy WP:Notability (sports)#Basketball and there's seemingly nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 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 11:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC with coverage in The Plain Dealer, the largest-circulation newspaper in Ohio, some national coverage in Sports Illustrated, and regional significant coverage in several articles [48], [49], [50] that is well beyond routine coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Northamerica1000's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:56, 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. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie D. Johnson[edit]

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

Despite the PROD being removed (which I now see had been PRODed once before), the article has no signs of satisfying the applicable notability and my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 16:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results seem mostly limited to blogs and social media. She got quoted in this article, but it's not not in-depth coverage of her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find much about her or even about the service except for that one HuffingtonPost article. Clearly not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:05, 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 Move to draft. The !vote count here is much closer to NC than it is to a delete consensus, but reading the individual arguments to keep, I don't see any real policies being argued here. Notability is about WP:RS, and there don't seem to be any here. Arguments such as, I suspect that there are others out there, don't carry any weight. Nor do assertions that it Passes WP:ARTIST, with no explanation of why.

Respect to Hobit for at least being up front that his argument was based on WP:IAR, and based largely on that, I'm going to go with SwisterTwister's draft suggestion instead of an outright delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Poole[edit]

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

Very little about this niche artist in independent, reliable sources. Lots of stuff on commercial sites. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. The closest he comes is #3 of WP:ARTIST, but he doesn't completely satisfy that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two references are given, one a dead link the other a link to a page that provides no information about Poole. This article completely fails to satisfy in WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. No independent, reliable sources at all.Mduvekot (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe he passes #4b of WP:ARTIST because his reinterpration of Ancestral Recall was the grand prize of the 2005 Gen Con Vintage Championship. Also, Ancestral Recall is one of the rarest nine original Magic the Gathering cards named the Power Nine. Finally, he has created images outside of Magic the Gathering, such as World of Warcraft and Sony Online Entertainment, which should be able to pass WP:BASIC. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4(b) is "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". How does a prize for a tournament at a convention become a substantial part of a significant exhibitionMduvekot (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MrLinkinPark333 - also, two new sources have been added, and I suspect that there are others out there. BOZ (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Gen Con is a convention, which means (i believe) also an exhibition. The prize was a reinterpretation of a rare and limited Magic the Gathering card that he created. Gen Con is a significant convention, and having this rare card as the main prize is a substantial part. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, but some award at a convention is not notable. And the 3 additional references added to the article do nothing to help this person's notability. One is not independent, one is a well, I'm not sure what... it's from the Daily Press and seems to contain an advert for some convention - as such, again, non-independent source. And the final is an article which only gives a brief mention to Poole. "Suspecting" that other sources are out there isn't a valid criterion for keeping. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've just added a few references that show that he was an Artist Guest of Honor at a few conventions. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's nice - still doesn't show how he meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Guest appearances at non-notable conventions actually show how thin his resume truly is. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now because this is still questionably better and solid for mainspace, Draft at best for now for improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this one winds up not being kept, I would support your idea of moving to Draft for improvements. BOZ (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ARTIST. Andrew D. (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both WP:ARTIST and WP:BASIC require independent sources, which are lacking. All of the current sources are convention listings or company profiles, which are mundane and commercially associated with Poole. I really don't think the Gen Con thing counts as a notable exhibition in this case. His painting was an element of a prize awarded to someone else, he did not win a prize himself, and the only reason he was involved was because he painted the original version of the "Ancestral Recall" card. No disrespect to Poole, but the lack of independent coverage suggests that's mainly about game rules. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and that award, that's not enough for notability. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Grayfell, and Drmies. There simply isn't enough independent and comprehensive coverage here. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate in draft space. For me personally this is a weak delete right now, but I feel like it's been inching closer to notability over the past two weeks, and with deeper digging, more sources could eventually be found. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fully admit I can't find additional sources and I agree with Torchiest that the case for keeping is weak. But based on personal knowledge of the field, I'm going with an IAR keep as I feel he's had a deeper impact than many artists with more coverage. Yeah, it's a weak argument, but... Hobit (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know anything about these fantasy card games (other than finding them kind of silly, to be honest) and even I know about Magic: The Gathering and think somebody who was an artist for the original cards axiomatically meets WP:GNG as a notable commercial artist whose work was included in a very lucrative, significant commercial visual art project that has stayed in publication for a long time. How is Poole really distinguishable from Hipgnosis as the artistic collective behind Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy album cover (except that Zeppelin is cooler than Magic: The Gathering, but anyway)? Magic: The Gathering has made a lot of money for its publishers and approaches the outer limits of what I would call a "niche" publication. I'm cognizant of the WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL maxim—"maybe in 70 years we'll appreciate him!"—but Charley Harper and Alvin Lustig immediately come to mind as commercial artists with limited lifetime academic or press coverage who nonetheless made their way into the public visual understanding in subtle but notable respects contemporaneously with their artistic output. I think in this case we should consider that the project to which the artist contributed was so notable that it confers notability in itself, whether or not the individual artist has garnered his/her own academic/press coverage. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since first publication in 1993, there have been over 14,000 different cards/versions of cards printed for the game, and certainly not every one of the hundreds (thousands?) of artists who've contributed to the game automatically warrant coverage, right? We still need independent coverage. According to List of Magic: The Gathering artists, there were probably about thirty artists who worked on the Limited Edition sets, maybe a bit more. Likewise, not all of them have articles, nor should they. Hipgnosis has some reliable independent sources, and has contributed to many, many independently notable works (list of albums), while Poole has done one semi-notable work (Ancestral Recall). Maybe this disparity in coverage is a byproduct of baby-boomer self-indulgence or something, but that isn't Wikipedia's problem (well, this isn't the place to address that problem, at least). As for your clearly explained personal dislike of Magic, hopefully nobody is factoring in anyone's personal opinion of the game into this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 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 keep. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Epperson[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actress; not because it's too soon, either. Quis separabit? 13:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If I have time, I'll look into this one. My guess is that she may have gotten significant coverage in the U.S. soap opera press. (However, I bet that it was long enough ago that it's not available online...) In any case, if none of us find anything in terms of sourcing, I agree that it should be deleted as a completely unsourced BLP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches simply found nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER and there's nothing solidly convincing aside from the Ashley Abbott character. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not really finding anything. As I said before, I suspect it may actually be out there, but it would be in old print editions of things like Soap Opera Digest which almost nobody has access to. So, based on the sourcing that's out there and readily available today, there's not much at all... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added multiple sources confirming her roles in various movies/tv shows, and I found 121 hits on Newspaper Archive. Currently, Newspaper Archive is undergoing maintenance and I can't view all of the hits. She passes WP:NACTOR and is light for GNG, but she has had coverage in People and a Christian news source. I'm going to ping IJBall since you seemed interested in this. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On my end, I'm looking for stronger sourcing related to her acting career on Y&R. While the article is now sourced, alot of the additions look like passing mentions. Heh – I do remember Bug Buster though... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of sourcing in ProQuest. Examples:

Nancy Reichardt (1989), "Look-alike newcomer thanks fate for plum role" The Gazette (Montreal), 646 words entirely about her[51]

Lilana Novakovich (1993), "Brenda Epperson heads for Metro," Toronto Star, 381 words about her[52]

Lilana Novakovich (1995), "Brenda Epperson has much to be happy about," The Record (Kitchener, Ontario), 470 words about her[53]

The previous article notes that her wedding was covered in People magazine. That citation is: "One night to cherish," People Weekly 42.4 (Jul 25, 1994), pg. 95, but the actual article isn't in my Proquest subscription.

--Jahaza (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the People cite really help – do wedding annoucements help to establish notability?! But these new sources look promising – I'll try to look at these later... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as significant indepth reliable sources coverage has been found. I don't have access to Proquest but exercising wikipedia good faith I trust Jahaza's judgement that there are significant articles about the subject in Canadian RS such as The Gazette (Montreal), The Toronto Star, and The Record and thats not including the wedding info.I think WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:02, 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 11:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 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. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa J Pellegrene[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER NottNott talk|contrib 10:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It almost seems like its promoting business for that person. Music1201 (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comments made when the page was created clearly show it's a promotional autobio, and other pages from the account all are tied to Pelegrene and her PR clients, it's clearly a coordinated publicity effort. JamesG5 (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Product of a spam-only account. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have followed this closely including of which I was an AfC reviewer and this is simply entirely questionable for any acceptability yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 10:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Chaplin[edit]

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

I have the greatest admiration for Mr. Chaplin and his legacy, and only enormous respect for his work and history. Nevertheless, inasmuch as notability is something which is WP:NOTINHERITED, I feel compelled to nominate this article for deletion: Mrs. Chaplin lived and died, and there is ample evidence of her having existed— but the references given here appear to only mention her in passing or WP:TRIVIALly, and unless someone can come up with some references in which she is discussed in depth and separately from her son Charlie, she will not warrant a standalone article. It might also be acceptable for this article to be changed into a redirect to the article on Charlie.KDS4444 ^Talk 23:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Notability is not inherited. The king of the sun (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps if needed although I would've also considered Redirecting such as the Chaplin family article being an acceptable target. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An interesting article with a few sources that I can't access as they are books and not online. There are I think two editors who made substantial contributions to the article and who are still with us: Jack1956 and All Hallow's Wraith, and I think they should at least be invited to comment in this discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 26 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)} 10:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimous consensus, after blocking the socks. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Grison[edit]

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

The article doesn't have any reliable sources that establish the notability of this person, and I can't find any. The article has been created and aggressively promoted by single-purpose accounts such as Torontofrenchpoetry2 (talk · contribs) and Australianpoets134 (talk · contribs). Graham87 09:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing in the article worth keeping. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks Graham and VegasCasinoKid for your recent notes and comments. I have added reliable sources to establish the notability of Laurent Grison. Is that better now? Thanks again.--A. Sise (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC) — A. Sise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article has been deeply improved.--Louise Ecitre (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC) — Louise Ecitre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep as this is no more questionable for the applicable notability at best.--Hector Deparis (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC) — Hector Deparis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Reliable sources have been added to establish the notability of L. Grison.--S. Ebold (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC) — S. Ebold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yumi Song[edit]

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

non-notable artist. Greek Legend (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a usual problem with non English Artists that sources are not that easily searchable. I've searched her by her Kanji name and did find some sources which just need to be translated. So, by info in English on her site, she passes WP:CREATIVE, but it need support by verifiable sources. So, unless someone persuade me, they do not exist on Japanese, it's a keep for me. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Persuasion is that the page creator is Yumisong. And I checked the Japanese page of this page in Japanese wikipedia. Even that page is created and heavily edited by Yumisong. https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E3%83%A6%E3%83%9F%E3%82%BD%E3%83%B3&action=history Greek Legend (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now and Draft if needed later as my searches found nothing outstandingly better, article is still currently questionable. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 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 09:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless multiple independent sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 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 Speedy Delete per WP:G4 and Salt per repeated recreation in various versions — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Nazre Aniruddha[edit]

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

Found nothing in news search. And the article starts as, "Aniruddha Nazre" is a member of the Executive team at Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, which looks similar to Aniruddha Nazre. Greek Legend (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing worth keeping. Sorry. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and SALT as this is clearly an attempt to circumvent article recreation block on Aniruddha Nazre. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajit Nazre (2nd nomination). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Analia Smith. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Rapids Cyclones[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL JMHamo (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not fail WP:NBASKETBALL: "This guideline does not cover sports teams". Many other teams in this league also have articles. Rmhermen (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft at least for now because this article clearly needs extra work to be better and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 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 09:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 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. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eashan Thakrar[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. He is a founder of a non-notable NGO that I'm also considering for deletion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:05, 12 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£} 16:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as there's simply not enough to suggest convincingly satisfying the applicable solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 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 09:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 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 redirect to Clutch (band). Drmies (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Cousins at the Prince[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable album: lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 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 01:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band perhaps as there's enough information to suggest keeping at least for information uses. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 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 09:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clutch (band) or Clutch discography. SST flyer 02:51, 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. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Lung[edit]

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

Non-notable band Greek Legend (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim of notability in the article, nothing found that could be used to improve the article. --Michig (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better at all and nothing else is convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. SST flyer 03:09, 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. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Singh Film Actress[edit]

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

Lead actress of an unreleased film. Greek Legend (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better at all for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a person needs two significant roles in notable films to pass notability guidelines. The film could either become a cult classic, or just gain enough general coverage to establish notability, or we could get enough sources to pass the GNG. However until any of those happen we do not have enough to establish Singh as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 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 redirect to Digital Trends. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Designtechnica[edit]

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

All news search results are from Digital Trends, which is related. Greek Legend (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Digital Trends. The website is notable, its company is not. SST flyer 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best as this seems best connected to that, not yet solidly independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 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 merge to school meal. MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Kids School Canteen Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been nominated before, seven years ago, and the decision was "keep"--I believe that AfD was flawed and did not present real arguments for actually keeping this. I looked for sources, and there is next to nothing, besides the usual links for an organization that's been around for a while. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Widespread mentions in Australian press. Note: Nominator has reverted a lot of new input rather than wikifying it. Aeonx (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new input you're talking about is promotional spam inserted by a user whose username matches the article and references which cite the subject as a primary source or use a deadlink. They're not really useful in establishing notability. Elaenia (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was able to find 5 sources which provided a passing mention of the subject (literally just mentioned it once in the entire article), so there doesn't seem to be notability. Aside from the passing mentions, there's close to nothing on the subject. Elaenia (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Elaenia - You have voted twice on this AFD :-). Which vote are you going with? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Oshwah: Hm? One of them is a comment reply to another user so I could explain what another user was doing in removing the article. I'm not that crazy... yet... :P Elaenia (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elaenia - OOPS! You're right! I didn't see the signature from Aeonx and instead saw yours. Sorry about that! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:47, 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) 01:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to School meal. Does not appear to meet WP:N to qualify for a standalone article. However, this is a significant organization in Australia with around 1,800 volunteer members, and the topic is presently not mentioned at the School meal article. A merge will enhance and improve the merge target, per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- North America, that strikes me as a positive idea. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be a notable organization in Australia and seems to have good references.Masterofroks (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, Masterofroks, but that's two "seem"s, and no evidence... Drmies (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Drmies and Elaenia definitely non-notable. Only passing mentions found and no qualitative sources provided otherwise. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. I don't see enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete most of the coverage centres around its creation and its existence rather actual achievements or significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable; fails WP:GNG. Merging with school meal appears to be a salutary resolution. (There appear to be interested parties viewing this discussion; from my utterly unofficial volunteer standpoint in another continent, your organization appears to be doing genuinely beneficial work and the fact that Wikipedia won't [likely] find the organization notable enough for an encyclopedia article shouldn't be taken as anything other than reference-work editors doing what reference-work editors are supposed to do.) Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:15, 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 merge to Selfie. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foot selfie[edit]

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

I am not seeing any notability established in this article. Nothing pops up online, and it was previously tagged for speedy deletion, but the page creator removed it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into selfie. It's not completely unheard of (see the reference I just added), but I'm not sure it has lasting notability on its own. Since it's basically just a selfie aimed at your feet instead of your face, I think merging and/or redirecting to that article is the best bet. clpo13_(talk) 18:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to selfie. Yes, it's apparently a thing, but this could be easily described in selfie. I don't think there's much chance it will overwhelm that article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to selfie and transwiki to Wiktionary as dictionary definition and permastub (not much to say about the topic). Esquivalience ^t 21:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Selfie. There isn't much to merge other than a passing mention, but I can see how it may be able to fit in the History section of the article. SST flyer 02:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to selfie; possibly speedy delete under G5 as it looks like this was created by the "selfie shoe" LTA User:Borcker. (Have just raised an SPI.) --McGeddon (talk) 13:41, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aquib Ramkishun[edit]

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

Non-notable high school baseball player, with little to no reliable sources found. Tinton5 (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASEBALL/N and WP:GNG. Penale52 (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHSPHSATH, WP:BASEBALL/N, and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High school athletes are almost never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a passing mention in the New Jersey Herald [54] but not significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASEBALL/N. Dontreader (talk) 02:21, 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. Discounting IP comments, obviously. Sandstein 07:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ishag[edit]

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

Minor player, minor coverage. I've already removed some vanispam from the article. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I had just gutted a lot of the article. The vast majority of the coverage in there seems to refer to other companies or businesses that just tangentially touched on Ishag. Nothing left looks to be significant coverage. In addition, I strongly suspect there's been paid editing going on here given this article and Karhoo were both created around the same time during a major PR push by the Karhoo people. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bb5fa9ee-78e7-11e5-933d-efcdc3c11c89.html#axzz440tEcI00

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jun/18/newmedia.internet

? Drmies (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. owner of several insignificant companies in succession. Nothing ishere to show notability DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The three companies in question are not insignificant enough in size or scope to merit deletion. They have a combined market value in excess of $1 billion according to my research, which is by no means small enough for the article to be deleted, particularly considering many of the companies on WP with less than a $50m market value. I found BluewaterBiog to have nine large waste water treatment plants around the world, which again provides no ground for deletion or a claim of insignificance in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.12.9.77 (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage of him does not rise to the level to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Recent CNBC and CNN reports on the the subject and his current business endeavor establish required level of notability worthy of the encyclopedia.

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Role-playing game. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bootleg role-playing games[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, which explains why the article has remained unsourced for more than a decade. Woodroar (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Woodroar (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It obviously must have happened, but I don't see any evidence that this is a notable part of RPG history. I did several searches, most of which turned up results about bootleg video games. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nom. I had proposed a merge to Role-playing game. Why is this not an adequate solution here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because this material is entirely unsourced. If someone added it to role-playing game right now, for example, it would be reverted as WP:NOR. Woodroar (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about replacing the content with a WP:REDIRECT to Role-playing game? Or how about any of the other suggestions in WP:BEFORE. ~Kvng (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily opposed to a redirect, per WP:CHEAP. But at the same time, if someone searches for "bootleg role-playing games" and gets sent to role-playing game where there isn't actually any information about bootlegs, that strikes me as a poor user experience. I don't think this is a particularly good candidate for redirect, but I wouldn't oppose it if consensus leaned that way. And, for what it's worth, I try to keep WP:BEFORE in mind whenever I consider nominating an article for deletion. I spent quite a while looking for sources here, and the fact that neither I nor anyone else has managed to find reliable sources covering this subject for over ten years says a lot. Woodroar (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as best since there's nothing to suggest a better independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 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 delete under criterion WP:CSD#A7 of the speedy deletion policy and pursuant to the WP:Biographies of living persons policy. Sections of that policy related to alleged criminals and individuals known for one event also apply. Finally, Wikipedia is not a news source, and at best, all this article does now is cover an evolving story. We can always revisit this later if the subject gets substantial coverage or the situation evolves. —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Allen (technician)[edit]

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

Inappropriate subject for a BLP. See WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME. "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much tempted to nuke this on the spot. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 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. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spelled Moon[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Looking at the sources: MTV listing is not independent. (Uploading your promotional bio to MTV is not an indication of notability.) 2 is the frontman talking about the band, not independent. 3 is a distribution label, not independent and not a reliable source. A search found nothing better. Closest to WP:BAND they come is by having 3 bluelinked members but looking at them shows the band falls short. Johansson is not notable independent of Yngwie Malmsteen. Chuck Wrights notability is dependent on the bands he has been a member of. Rieckermann redirects to his band, he is not independently notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article's existing sources don't indicate notability, and a quick bit of googling didn't turn up anything better. -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator hits the nail on the head with every point. Johansson and Wright are independently notable and it's fair to keep a mention on the band on their respective pages. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests any better solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 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. No assertion of significance or importance. —C.Fred (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge antonio pita carreras[edit]

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

Page likely recreated from Jorge Antonio Pita Carreras - Tenor (a page just deleted very recently). Music1201 (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Delta Phi Zeta[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Notability, created by COI editor and only sources are related to the organisation itself Melcous (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather this page not get deleted. Xmskab (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Single-chapter organization, no evidence of significance or coverage beyond their campus. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blatantly non-notable; seems to only have the one chapter and no secondary coverage at all. -IagoQnsi (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks evidence to prove notability according to the guidelines, and it is unlikely that such information will be available any time soon. Perhaps in the future, if the organization expands or becomes more notable, could it have its own encyclopedic entry.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. A recently-formed, small, single-chapter sorority. No significant, independent coverage found. I don't even see a claim of notability in the article. It was founded 4 years ago, it still exists, and it has 4 letters in its name... not much there. Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Notability is not useful in deciding the notability of this article, since it's a dormant essay that was created in a few hours by only one user. Meters (talk) 20:40, 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. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Armbruster[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable singer. The provided references do not support notability and the Google links don't offer anything better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Music1201 (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing imaginably better including for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable for any of the things he has done as an entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 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. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Applegate[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~Delete ~~It has many examples of the actor's filmography which are of significant notability~~ Lack of sources. Music1201 (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I can find a single useful reliable source about this guy. His suicide would suggest he may've garnered some sort of significant attention, but all of my searches proved this guy is non-notable. In addition, he needs to have multiple SIGNIFICANT, MAJOR roles, not just several minor parts. editorEهեইдအ😎 04:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. There were a few blog and forum posts that pointed out he and his character in Heathers both died by suicide, but you can't make an article out of IMDb trivia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is another biography questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of anything approaching a reliable secondary source. The article says his biggest role was as Peter Dawson, without giving any source for this view. If it is true, it probably shows he is just not notable. That was a role that gets him listed 11 in a listing of the cast. So it was a marginally notable role in a not particularly well known film. Nothing here comes close to establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 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. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asako Fujii[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor. ANN profile shows minor and guest roles. GPH only shows 6 roles [55], all of which look like minor ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The roles are indeed very unnotable, with none of the listed work articles even mentioning Fujii. Also, the roles tend to be that of extremely sideline characters. Add on top of that the lacking coverage. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT when it comes to notability as the roles are all minor with no notable reception. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not satisfying the applicable actors notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 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. Search for reliable sources was obviously unsuccessful. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry G. Angelo[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/producer. Has been tagged for notability since 2014. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has had the lead role in 3 independent films, solid supporting actor in mainstream films, directing and producing of lesser note at present.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Music1201 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Atlantic306's comment is still not actually improving the article itself thus the article is simply still questionable and the entire article itself is questionable for any better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment my point was that he has a claim of passing WP:NACTOR although RS are vital and am looking for them.Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adewale Fayemi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Coverage appears limited to press releases. Article is basically a resume. ubiquity (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article

Total S.A., the parent company of Total E&P Uganda has posted three general managers to the country in the last four years. The last guy before Adewale Fayemi lasted a few months. Part of the problem is that the first two appointees were not consensus builders and the Ugandan government viewed them as arrogant and impatient. Fayemi on the other hand listened to the government and within 60 days of his appointment, went down to Tanzania with the number two individual in the Ugandan Oil and Energy Ministry and participated in convincing the Ugandans and Tanzanians to build the crude oil pipeline from Hoima to Tanga, which Total S.A. wanted all along. That ability to build consensus is what makes him notable in my book. He then turned around and convinced Total S.A. to commit US$4 billion towards the construction of the pipeline. He is getting results, in 6 months where two of his predecessors failed in 3 years. I think that is notable.

Thanks. Fsmatovu (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all of this seems questionable for the applicable independent notability, nothing here suggest considerably better improvements. Asking Wikicology for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sadly no evidence of notability. Yes, his appointment as the General Manager, Total E & P (Uganda) generated a lots of media coverages but that is not significant enough to establish Mr. Adeyemi's notability. The sources provided and the ones I found do not address him in detail. Hence, he fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. General managers are not automatically notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:21, 24 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) 00:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Existing sources and the ones I've been able to find are for these person being appointed as a general manager, effectively making this person notable for one event —UY Scuti ^Talk 11:47, 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 no consensus. I'm calling this "no consensus" since there's no option for "will keep momentarily to move the article to user space." Drmies (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Water Society[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, Google searches turned up nothing remotely reliable. At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Everymorning (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Delete. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL or advertising. I couldn't find a single source even mentioning this book, either that or its WP:TOOSOON, as mentioned above editorEهեইдအ😎 00:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-Move As the author of this project, which has been underway for 4 years, I have infinite more authority on the subject than this individual who had nothing better to do with his time than flag a page I created literally after 5-10 minutes. This was my first page creation and I was in the process of trying to add a template with more information when I found out that my 10-minute old page was flagged. This is a real project and if the page is not deleted by tomorrow, there will be more information. Of course there is no other information available on the net if this is the first time details of the project are being disclosed. The project is registered and protected by the Library of Congress, as well as registered with the WGA. Maybe if I had more than 10 minutes to provide additional information I could provide an amount that would suffice Mr. Everymorning's strict requirements for a page's infancy. UnorthodoxMinds —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only is it WP:TOOSOON, the article was created by someone closely related to the subject of the article, and who is apparently going to attempt to exercise ownership of the article. Regarding the complaint about the speed of the AFD listing, perhaps if the article author had taken a moment to note any of the numerous suggestions automatically made during the process of creating the article we wouldn't be having this discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete/Move to userspace @UnorthodoxMinds:If this article is really going to be notable, I'll assume WP:GOODFAITH and just say this gets moved to the creator's userspace. Otherwise, delete. Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 02:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-Move @ProgrammingGeek: I can assure your good faith is not misplaced. What would moving the page to my user space entail, and would it be allowed to be moved back out of my user space after more information/citations/website/social media are provided? UnorthodoxMinds

-Move @ProgrammingGeek: Thank you very much for the suggestion of moving this article to my user space while it is developed further. I strongly appreciate this, and your good faith, considering other veteran users seem much more interested in just increasing their "page delete count' rather than actually bettering the service provided by wikipedia to its readers. In the future I will be more careful to abide by this process. Thank you again Programming Geek. UnorthodoxMinds

-Move @Uncle Milty: And perhaps if you took the time to develop interpersonal skills rather than spending your valuable time, your life, "patrolling the web" you could have offered me, as a novice page creator, advice or at the very least address me directly--ping me--rather than saying "the article author" and ignoring me... Instead you just say I should have looked out for suggestions, which did not exist at the time of the page creation, obviously. I didn't even know how to add an argument for the salvation of the page properly until now; how is that fair? I can assure you regardless of what happens with this current witch trial, and without me, the good people of Pittsburgh will have this page back up and heavily cited in a matter of weeks. Black Water is a project that locals in various Pittsburgh districts have been eager for for several months and will happily show their full fledged support for. And there was nothing on this page I was going to list that could not be 100% verified through legal documentation or other such sources. No speculation or bias whatsoever. Though, how can bias exist for things like "page length"... You didn't think it would be appropriate considering my newbie status to consider a "good faith" suggestion like the user above (Programming Geek)? Why not suggest it being moved to my user space considering it WILL be notable? You didn't think that would be more appropriate than a robotic "DELETE". Ridiculous for a veteran member such as yourself who should be helping novices: you sir lack the qualities of leadership UnorthodoxMinds

- Comment @UnorthodoxMinds: Moving it to your userspace would allow you to edit it as a draft, and when more sources/article is completed it can be moved back into an article. If you need more help please visit my talk page. Thanks Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 03:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment @ProgrammingGeek: I apologize for not reaching you on your talk page but I visited the link and am unsure how to communicate there. I will read up on that tonight. One last quick question: Am I allowed to move the page right this moment to my user space? Even though this hearing for it's fate is currently underway? If I can do this I'll just move it right now. UnorthodoxMinds -- @UnorthodoxMinds:See below Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page)

- Request to move I understand that the majority may be in favor of deleting this, but under WP:GOODFAITH I'm going to move this page to User:UnorthodoxMinds/The Black Water Society if there is no objection in three hours (reasonable?) thanks Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 03:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on: I'll move it for you and close this discussion. UnorthodoxMinds, it's not easy watching your article go up for deletion. However, that is not a reason to try and rip old Uncle Milty a new one. The problem with the article, first of all, is that it lacks reliable sources that verify that the article is indeed on a notable topic so that it may pass our guidelines (in general WP:GNG). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:39, 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.