Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 March	1 April >

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Kamaya[edit]

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

there is notability that included of the sourced that included of fan known the GMA artist again this nominated should not understand the clarify translated of the poor English skills Oripaypaykim (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy-delete: creation of User:FedericoMacalintal sockpuppet. -WayKurat (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply WP:TOOSOON to have an article. No prejudice against recreation in the future should she have enough significant roles to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not convincing the applicable notability, the current list of works is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hagger[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not encyclopedic. The problem is that Wikipedia notable is a very strange commodity. There needs to be a community debate to formulate what is and is not notable. The definitions used are not very good. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - This article is as encyclopedic as any others. Granted, you might not be aware of individuals within the technology startup sector, however, there is plenty of non-trivial evidence online regarding Matt Hagger. He has been recognised as an individual by companies such as British Airways, receiving their Great Britons award, and Growing Business in 2009, having been selected for their Young Guns Award. Companies such as Zkatter were awarded and received funding for their development on Bada, and been receipient of many other technology industry awards. In addition to this he has been featured on panels and been featured on national news outlets for his opinions and insight into the technology space. --Westwired (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though there are lots of references listed, none obviously meet WP:BIO criteria (no in-depth coverage from reliable sources, just mentions of businesses he's been involved with, press releases, or simple listings). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, Ohnoitsjamie, and others, as subject appears to lack significant coverage from reliable publications at this time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing noticeably better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Street Gallery[edit]

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

Distinctly non-notable gallery. I've been unable to find sources besides the two already mentioned by the author, one of which is a story about the gallery closing. Author has attempted to lean on the notability of a couple of the artists that have exhibitioned there but, of course, notability is not inherited. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In case of galleries, a review of exhibition of notable artist mat throw a weight for keeping, since without exhibitions, gallery is just a mere walls, but in this case, the gallery just didn't had enough time to gain the notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Matt Moravec and Alex Gartenfeld might pass WP:GNG themselves (they've received plenty of attention form the art press), and the West Street gallery might have a place in an article about either of them, but since no such articles exist, and this article can't be sourced properly, I see no alternative to deletion f0r now. Mduvekot (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon, only existed for 2 years and thus nothing suggesting solidly convincing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 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 speedy delete. by Tokyogirl79, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (SEFPRODUCTIONS) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shuck returns Devil dog[edit]

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

Not a notable film. JDDJS (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, this is long-term Paul Easter spammer User:SEFPRODUCTIONS. --McGeddon (talk) 07:22, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spy-fi[edit]

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

Fails notability. Article presents "spy-fi" as a genre or sub-genre, describing it as a cross of the espionage and science-fiction genres. The article is poorly sourced and I believe is synthesizing its definition. I do not believe it is a recognized genre, not do a believe it is a notable descriptor of a group of films. According to Brittany (2014) the term "spy-fi" was coined by Danny Biederman for his book The Incredible World of Spy-fi: Wild and Crazy Spy Gadgets, Props, and Artifacts from TV and the Movies. The book is largely a look at the gadgets and props used in the film, and is not an analysis of genre. Beyond this book the article is sourced to sub-standard sources and most of the films are unsourced. I cannot find any authoritative film analysis that regards "spy-fi" as a genre. Betty Logan (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of the sources I added are right out of google scholar not to mention books discussing this topic.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how establishing that Biederman coined the term amounts to a rationale to delete. What it does amount to is an encyclopaedic fact that should be added to the article. Nor do I understand the requirement for an "authoritative" (meaning scholarly?) analysis. Surely it is enough for a popular culture article that the concept is discussed in popular culture sources—which it surely is. The article may need cleanup, but not so badly that it warrants deletion. SpinningSpark 23:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biederman is actually writing on the subject of his collection of gadgets from spy films, not discussing a genre of fiction. The article does not present any authoritative definition of the concept, and Biederman who is credited with coining the phrase seems to engage more with the technology than the actual films. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Packer, Secret Agents: Popular Icons Beyond James Bond repeatedly and explicitly refers to spy-fi as a genre. Maeda, Book Publishing 101: Inside Information to Getting Your First Book or Novel Published defines spy-fi as "espionage stories with science fiction elements..." [1], pretty much the definition given in out article, and on another page [2] explicitly lists spy-fi as a sub-genre of science fiction/fantasy. SpinningSpark 14:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: even though they're straight out of google scholar?--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the existence of the term, I dispute how you applying the sources. For example, Google scholar throws up this source: William Hood, Spy Fiction Through Knowledgeable Eyes. This is what he has to say about "spy-fi": "In the year-round torrent of fiction dealing with espionage and other intelli- gence activity — some publishers now categorize these books as Spy-fi, a term that will not appear here again — there are a few novels of more than passing interest." This writer does not even associate it with science-fiction; to him and many publishers "spy-fi" is just an abbreviation of "spy fiction" (albeit it in 1989). I don't think the concept as the article describes it is credible enough for an article. It is basically just a buzz phrase for what is more widely known as a techno thriller. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support deleting. As the nominator points out, this is not a recognized genre. Google scholar is not a RS. The book mentioned is on gadgets, not genre. Note that Taeyebaar has a years-long history of changing genres and adding new categories then edit warring with the multiple editors who disagreed with him. He has been told many times to get consensus for his genre changes, but his response is that since he is right, he is not edit warring. His Talk page history shows dozens and dozens of warnings that he has removed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gothicfilm is describing his/her own edit wars with multiple editors [3] but in any case I'm confident this article will be kept. PS if Google scholar is not a reliable source I don't see why the template includes it. Wikipedia is clearly recognizes it as a reliable source. That's all that counts, not because you don't like it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No: Google Scholar is not a relaible source. It is a search engine. It provides results which need to be assessed to see if they are suitable for inclusion. – SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes, this is a good one. I've edited it to reflect the emphasis on gadgets and other sci-fi hardware, while keeping the framework and best of existing writing. It could shape up to be a very good page. Removed the image, which didn't seem to have much to do with the page concept, but other images should show up in time to do the page and concept justice. Nice framework to work with. (edit: Just checked and the page is from 2005, an oldie waiting to be a goodie) Randy Kryn 1:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan you might be right about one source, but it still doesn't invalidate the other sources. --Taeyebaar (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seem notable enough. The Mad Hatter (talk)

DELETE I can't believe this is even a discssion. Most spy fiction contains "gadgets" of some sort or other (miniature cameras being an obvius example). Many of the refs in the article are dubious (Tor.com is less reliable than IMDB (it's crowd-sourced) and MI6HQ is a fan site). The rest of the references are so badly formatted it's difficult to make a proper judgement on whether they are good sources, or if they carry the purported information, and if so where. The first search I did – in James Bond in World and Popular Culture: The Films are Not Enough through Google Books - shows two mentions of the term – as a band name, not as a film genre. On the questionable use of that source I'm dubious on the others until more details can be provided. – SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename? Upon reading some of the other discussions on this it does seem that the common use of Spy-fi just means a fiction film or book in the spy genre, not a mix of spy and science fiction. The page should probably still be kept but renamed, or is there already a page for gadgets and future-tech in spy films and books? If not this page, renamed, could create the framework for the topic. Randy Kryn 12:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since spy fiction already exists, that would be an argument to redirect if we accept that the terms are synonymous. However, not all sources are using the terms synonymously. At least some are making a distinction, for instance [4] and [5] would have it as a distinct genre. In any event, whatever we title the article, there are certainly sources that discuss this kind of fiction as a distinct group, so it is right that we have an article on it, whatever we think of the validity of that classification. SpinningSpark 14:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~>tfw someone criticized crowdsourced information on Wikipedia.~~ In all seriousness though, I'd really prefer to see proper inline citations created before assessing whether or not this article has appropriate citations. I'd like to know what info on the page is coming from legit sources, and what is coming from Tor or M17HD or whatever. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An alternative would be to merge the sourced content—of which there is very little once you cull the massive list of unsourced books, games and films—into a sub-section at techno-thriller. "Spy-fi" in this context is a neologism at best. The "spy-fi" page could then be turned into a disambiguation page with links to spy fiction and to techno-thriller. Betty Logan (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a genre were notable, what would we expect to see? I think common usage of the term in multiple reliable sources, such as collections of criticism or discussion of the genre as a whole. We have a book that coined the term, and a few book sources that refer to the term, and some internet lists. Is this thinking the right way to apply notability to a genre? Oh, and I will also add Wikipedia:Assume good faith here. Chris vLS (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is convincing enough as a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to spy fiction just like sci-fi goes to science fiction. Andrew D. (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: User:Taeyebaar said it with "A lot of the sources I added are right out of google scholar". If this truly is a real genre (it might be), it's not notable enough to receive coverage in secondary sources. As the nom mentioned, this is a synthesis of sources and thus fails WP:OR. I see no way to salvage this article as it stands and would need a complete rewrite if sufficient secondary sources are found to support notability. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:45, 7 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 as I'm not confident this is going to get any clearer and populated with votes (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shehla Rashid Shora[edit]

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

This is probably the third page after Umar Khalid and Kanhaiya Kumar to be created about the single event 2016 JNU sedition controversy. The person seems to be notable only because of this single event and this article is a case of WP:RECENTISM. The event itself is recent (less than two months) and as such there is a news spike. I do not see any significant coverage of the person before the event either and the article reads like a WP:PSEUDO. At this stage if I do WP:10YT, I do not see why this person merits an article on their own. My recommendation would be to document this person's role in the event page. As such, either delete the page or (preferably) redirect/merge it to the event page. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- WP:SINGLEEVENT and fails notability. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With due respect, I don't believe those voting "delete" have read the sources carefully enough. There is a Times of India article entirely focused on her, published a year before any of these protests began [6]. That piece, as well as second reference, offer fairly detailed coverage of her personal life, not simply her role in the recent protests. In my book, this meets WP:GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your second reference is actually related to the ongoing event. Your first reference is the only mention of the subject I found before the recent event and even then it doesn't focus on a lot of detail. If the person is notable enough, then there should be multiple sources to demonstrate notability before the current event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- It does not come under WP:SINGLEEVENT as she is in the forefront in many agitations. Right from Occupy UGC movement, Justice for Rohith Vemula and the Sedition controversy. She also was the acting President of the students' union when Kanhaiya kumar was in jail.InspireTheWorld (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is clearly notable. There is a Times of India article written entirely about her, and the article doesn't even meet the WP:SINGLEEVENT criteria. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanlu121 (talk • contribs)

Keep - She is role model for all student activist. She is a bright orator and can be seen on many television shows.She has leaded many students agitations so recommend it to keep it. She deserves a page to there. She has more than 7000 followers on twitter and more that 30000 followers on facebool as well so I don't think it doesn't make any sense to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.114.51 (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references indicate article meets WP:GNG criteria. Article could use clean-up, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I remember from many AfDs that the value of "Times of India" articles as reliable sources is often very much doubted. Could somebody evaluate the sources in some detail? Sandstein 21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a Wikipage for the Times of India. It is a standard WP:NEWSORG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Sandstein, I've worked with South Asian media sources for a while now, and my impression of the Times of India is the following. It is seen as less "serious" and perhaps closer to a tabloid than a few others; at the same time, it is India's most popular English newspaper, and so the coverage it gives cannot be dismissed. In particular, I would take a news story or a profile like this one fairly seriously. Others may, of course, disagree; but the ToI is certainly used as a reliable source in any number of our articles. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - She has been covered prominently much before. The Hindu Business Line in 2011 ran a detailed profile of her, along with other Kashmiri women who are vocal about the human rights situation in Kashmir, her role in ensuring fail trial to prisoners, her activism to save the Dal Lake and her participation in youth leadership programme. [7] A Kashmiri magazine, Kashmir Scenario, in 2013, ran a powerful and in-depth interview of her, documenting her activism related to Internet rights, against acid attacks and for human rights in Kashmir. [8] She was at the forefront of demanding legal reform of cyber laws in 2013 following Shaheen Dhada's arrest in Mumbai. [9] [10] [11] [12] Quite clearly, she has been active for the past several years and has been prominently covered even in the absence of any controversy. In 2013, when an all-girls' band in Kashmir was facing harassment, she was again at the forefront of ensuring justice for them. [13] Her role in organising support for them was covered by prominent Indian publications, including the Hindustan Times, Rediff, Times of India. [14] [15] [16] She has been the leading face of the Occupy UGC protests and later, the Rohith Vemula movement during which she sat on indefinite hunger strike in JNU. [17] [18] Even hostile media publications such as Zee News documented her role in visualising the Occupy UGC movement and pioneering the decision to "camp" at UGC for fellowships. [19] She led the protests to MHRD, several times, taking on Smriti Irani and calling her assurances as eyewash. [20] [21] [22] -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.58.141 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcom (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:TWODABS, disambiguation is appropriately dealt with by hatnotes in the articles. A move request claiming otherwise did not gain consensus. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 17:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Keep-and-move TWODABS does not apply here because neither of the articles is primary over the other. (Please note that in the context of TWODABS, the pertinent definition of "primary" is Main; principal; placed ahead of others. and not The first in a group or series. In other words, just because the now defunct Broadcom Corporation predates its successor (Broadcom Limited), it does not make the former primary over the latter for the purposes of TWODABS. Please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.) ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 13:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. SageGreenRider

,I think you are making a common error in misunderstanding primary topic. The ONLY relevant meaning concerns how the articles are titled. By definition, the article at Broadcom is the primary topic for the term Broadcom. A recent requested move to change that failed. older ≠ wiser 13:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a circular argument. The fact is that Broadcom Corporation is not in fact primary over Broadcom Limited. My earlier failed move request was not debated widely enough. I'm hoping a proper debate will happen here. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 13:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the requested move to change the primary topic failed. Until that changes, the primary topic is the article titled with the base name. older ≠ wiser 13:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then since the two are related, let's consider them both together. I propose that the disambig page be kept AND moved to Broadcom. And the incumbent article should be moved to its proper place, namely Broadcom Corporation.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 13:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to revisit a recently closed move discussion. older ≠ wiser`

I believe it is and I am doing so. AfDs get a bigger audience and a broader consensus will be reached. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 17:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think not, but you seem adept at not listening in any case, so whatever. older ≠ wiser 11:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did listen to you, but I didn't agree with you: listening ≠ agreeing. And enough with the ad hominem attacks, please.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was meant as an observation, though admittedly a bit snarky. Move is not one of the typical outcomes of an AfD discussion. At best, an outcome of keep or no consensus to delete with no modification to the current disambiguation would result in an inconsistency with guidance at WP:TWODABS. As things currently stand, the disambiguation page is unused and should be deleted under current guidelines. older ≠ wiser 13:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a typical case, so why should we restrict ourselves to a typical outcome? Keep-and-move is the common sense solution in this case. You haven't addressed the substance of the issue, namely that Broadcom Corporation is not primary over Broadcom Limited. I'm not interested in red tape, only in serving our readers with clear navigational aids. And "you seem adept at not listening" is in fact a classic ad hominem attack.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 13:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything particularly unusual about this case. Your previous attempt gain consensus for your position failed and you are attempting to re-argue the case here. I have no opinion as to whether either B corporation or B Ltd or neither is the primary topic. However, the previous request failed to gain consensus and until there is consensus to move the articles (which I don't think is appropriate to do through an AfD) the disambiguation page is superfluous. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous debate didn't attract enough participants to form a proper consensus. In addition, I didn't open this debate, User:James Allison did. As a member of this community, I'm entitled to add my opinion, which is keep-and-move, to the debate here. And when my opinion differs from yours, I expect you to respect that, rather than have you accuse me of not listening to the latter.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 16:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 13:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with your opinion that there is no primary topic. I do have a problem with your claim that WP:TWODABS doesn't apply in this case. older ≠ wiser 19:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TWODABS excludes itself for the case of no primary topic. It reads in part As discussed above, if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name. and goes on to explain what to do if one topic is primary. The policy for the case of no primary topic is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which says in part If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 22:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are misunderstanding twodabs. I understand that you are disgruntled about the article about the corporation being considered the primary topic. But so long as it is titled "Broadcom", it is by definition the primary topic for that term -- a hatnote at that article is sufficient for disambiguation and per TWODABS a separate disambiguation page is unnecessary. You failed to gain consensus to establish that Broadcom Corporation should not be the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 22:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no primary topic, and so the incumbent should not be there. The fact that there is an article where there should be a disambig page is a mistake. I am not disgruntled about the mistake. I'm only fearful that our readers will be confused by it and I'm trying to get community support here to correct it. If I fail, readers will suffer, but otherwise it makes no difference to me. I already know about the subject. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 22:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is an article where there should be a disambig page is a mistake. I understand this is your opinion. However, your attempt to change this did not gain consensus. Until the article title changes TWODABS applies regardless of your opinion. older ≠ wiser 00:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you believe that a given temporary consensus is infallible and that it always overrides reality. It does not. A cursory investigation of Broadcom Corporation versus Broadcom Limited would reveal to you that neither is primary over the other. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 01:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't care a bit about whether either B corporation or B Ltd or neither is the primary topic. The point is that your proposal failed and an AfD really is not the right place for such a determination. Until that changes, there is no need for this extraneous disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 01:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing new so let's just agree to disagree. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 01:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Somebody else's opinion, please? Sandstein 21:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need a disambiguation page when there's only two entries and a primary topic. If consensus changes such that there's no longer a primary topic, then we can make a dab page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very strange to see a disambiguation page for Broadcom. There are countless examples of companies buying and being bought where 1 company name remains. And I don't see disambiguation pages for those. I would support deletion of this page.

Can you give specific examples? In this case, the base name presently contains an article about a legal entity (Broadcom Corporation) that no longer exists. It was absorbed into Avago, which changed its name to Broadcom Limited. If no disambig, which article should be at the base name, in your opinion? ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 11:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~Keep~~ perhaps as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and per NinjaRobotPirate. This looks like an excellent example of where hatnotes are appropriate. It is more confusing to a reader to get a DAB page when searching for a major corporation. A separate discussion probably needs to be held regarding which Broadcom article ends up in primary if we can't agree here (personally, I lean towards Broadcom Limited, as it's most relevant today). That's my two cents. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If my proposal here fails, I'll open a WP:MOVEREQ for Broadcom ==> Broadcom Corporation and then Broadcom Limited ==> Broadcom and see how that sits. Important note to closer If the decision is delete, could you please move it and, more importantly, its talk page to my user space because I would like to reference the failed move discussion there on a possible future (different) move proposal. Cheers! ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 11:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are plenty of other similar business pages that have been acquired, yet do not have a disambiguation page. Let's maintain consistency. This is confusing for a reader. Meatsgains (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This case is different. The acquiring company (Avago) not only acquired Broadcom Corporation but also changed its name to the similar but different Broadcom Limited. The name of the article at Avago was (correctly) moved to Broadcom Limited, hence the need for clarification.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 11:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like when SBC bought AT&T and then assumed that name?Chrisw80 (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. (Well the SBC case is even more complicated if you go back far enough because SBC was one of the seven baby bells spun out of AT&T by Judge Green's MFJ but I digress...) ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider

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

Post-closing note I made a new proposal based on @Chrisw80's suggestion: click here ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 15:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snow keep. An NAC close this early is unconventional, but, regardless of whether the article was moved out of user space too early, it's been very clearly demonstrated that the subject meets the first criterion of WP:NBOOKS. Given that the notability is not contentious, and the content of the article such as it is is fine, there's no reason to delete it simply because it's a stub. (non-admin closure) —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claire of the Sea Light[edit]

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

I do not see how this novel meets Wikipedia:Notability (books). I still want the community consensus so that no detail lefts out. Mr RD 21:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a novel by a major, award-winning novelist, and it takes only few seconds to Google the title and see extensive critical discussion of this book in sources like The New York Times [23][24], The Guardian [25], San Francisco Chronicle [26], Boston Globe [27], National Public Radio [28], Los Angeles Times [29], etc., etc., etc. The article needs improving but it is obviously, overwhelmingly notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Which is why I sent a stale draft to mainspace on it recently while working from my phone. It is really hard to add refs on the phone, but the title was already redlinked and the artist is very notable. Clearly a good topic that can be built out. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:TROUT to Legacypac for moving it to mainspace before it was sufficiently referenced. This appears to have been an utterly avoidable AfD. Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jclemens: See below, it is actually the second time this page has been moved to the mainspace by the same user before it was sufficiently referenced. Perhaps a double trout (and that's if we only focus on this particular page move)?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close and move back to the user namespace User:Accuratezza/Claire of the Sea Light if it still isn't suitable by the end of this discussion. I reverted the move when the page was originally moved to the mainspace by Legacypac; it clearly wasn't ready when it was moved the first time. They moved it back again (page history). Moves from the userspace to the mainspace should not be done unless the page is suitable for the mainspace (i.e. meets the core content policies). Alternatively, Keep.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

both my moves to mainspace were to improve and expand the encyclopia. Moving a good stub back into userspace without doing any due diligence is wrong [30]. That is disruptive and does not improve the encylopedia. Refs are nice, but it's a book stub that is interlinked with the obviously notable author's page, making it essentially a subpage of the author. There are hundreds of thousands of pages in the project with no references that have existed a lot longer then a few hours you could go target instead of stalking my edits because you failed to get me sanctioned at ANi. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, (initially i thought this was a joke afd but it was put up a day early) this book easily meets WP:NBOOK, just have a look at the amazon (although we don't use for notability it can be a good starting place in the quest for reviews) entry here [31] which lists about 30 reviews including from Booklist, New York Times, New York Daily News, Huffington, San Francisco Chronicle, Entertainment Weekly, Ebony, Kirkus, The Washington Post Book World, Miami Herald, The Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times Book Review, Publishers Weekly. Also, in the first 30 hits of a gsearch under "Claire of the Sea Light edwidge reviews", in addition to the reviews listed above by Arxiloxos, there are also reviews from The Southeast Review - "Danticat successfully challenges the idea of a monolithic story and shows that a person’s biography exists within the context of a community ... Danticat also brings to question the singularity of history by privileging multiple voices."[32], World Literature Today - "Claire of the Sea Light is not Danticat’s best work. Too many of the novel’s pages roil in her characters’ disconsolate ruminations. Still, the fiction holds because its chief suspense—concern for the runaway child and curiosity about what she will do—holds. Also, it ends brilliantly."[33], The Washington Times - "That Ms. Danticat can evoke possibility so powerfully in this attractive child testifies to her literary gifts: her lucid prose, her wide-ranging references, her sharpness of focus."[34], Harvard Review Online - "Resisting sentimentality or oversimplification, Danticat creates a series of stories that weave seamlessly into each other, each story answering questions conjured by those that precede it."[35], The Dallas Morning News - "Claire is set in May 2009 and imagines Haiti nine months before the life-grinding 2010 earthquake. Made from that wreckage, Danticat’s Claire is a bleak and beautiful “collage à clef.”"[36], Palimpsest: A Journal on Women, Gender, and the Black International - "Danticat paints the portrait of a town in peril, which can be read as a microcosm for life in Haiti"[37]. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice amount of secondary source coverage shown here. — Cirt (talk) 00:03, 4 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny J. Blair[edit]

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

Unable to find any in-depth coverage of this session artist. It appears he's been part of backing bands but nothing to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICIAN. Toddst1 (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have supported a speedy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable BMK (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually suggesting better solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 6 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G 161-7[edit]

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

Insufficient notablity per WP:NASTRO. Lithopsian (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Also unsourced. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "G 161-7 is a system of two red dwarf stars." is all it reads. It's not notable. Davidbuddy9 Talk 23:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's a paragraph on LHS6167 in Montagnier et al (2006) and in Scholz et al (2005), and a sentence in Reid et al (2002). There may be others, but it's probably not worth the bother. Praemonitus (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at the scholarly sources identified by Praemonitus, but I don't think that the coverage is sufficiently in-depth to fulfill prong 3 of WP:NASTCRIT. As for the remaining three prongs of WP:NASTCRIT, it readily fails each of them. Astro4686 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to lack notability for now. jps (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as there is not enough content out there per WP:RS to show significance of this subject. Maharayamui (talk) 01:27, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Ashten[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Cannot find any reliable sources to prove his notability. Natg 19 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just one of his roles might (and I have my doubts about this), be a significant role in a notable film. However the criteria say that a person needs at least two such roles to be notable on that prong, so he fails that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as still questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. by Ponyo, CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Mitr[edit]

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

Not a notable actor or director (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7835335/). Sismarinho (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While IMDb may be enough to establish that a person exists, it is not enough to establish the person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMDB is not a reliable source. Maharayamui (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: I've deleted the article as CSD A7 - no credible claim of significance was made.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 6 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2MASS J18522528-3730363[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Published research consists only of a handful of general catalogue entries. Lithopsian (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not-notable, and there are no listed sources, besides the aforementioned catalogue entries. Sheepythemouse
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced. A Google search also didn't seem to yield any reliable sources. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a red dwarf is not notable at all. The article literally only reads "2MASS J18522528-3730363 is a red dwarf star." Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it fails WP:GNG. There isn't enough substantial content available to build a worthwhile article about this star. Red dwarfs are a dime a dozen and this one just hasn't received much study yet. Praemonitus (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG notability is rarely met by astral objects; more specific criteria are listed at WP:NASTCRIT... but none is met. Tigraan (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NASTCRIT. It is (1) not visible to the naked eye, (2) is just one star in a massive catalog, (3) has not received significant scholarly attention, and (4) was discovered after 1850. Using NASA's ADS search engine, I found just a single, trivial reference to this star in the scholarly literature. It was listed once in a table. Astro4686 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and perhaps WP:PROD these from now on? jps (talk) 00:09, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Wilson (screenwriter)[edit]

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

Subject is not notable, limited sources found on the subject, and there are multiple people with the same name, so it is not clear whether all the accomplishments listed are of one person. Delete because there is not enough information on the person. Sheepythemouse (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication he is a notable screen writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My Google searches haven't found nearly enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:51, 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 procedural close. Article redirected to IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IDI (film)[edit]

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

Film has not begun principal filming. Per WP:NFF, "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles . . . ." Rebb ing 18:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article already exists under a different name IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim created by User:JackTracker. The author failed to perform a search. --Charles Turing (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is already existing as IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim.JackTracker (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close this AFD as now moot and unnecessary. Being BOLD, and because this abbreviated name IDI is sourcable in multiple news sources as representing the film IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim. I simply changed the discussed stub into a redirect. This AFD is no longer required. Thoughts Charles Turing? Gene93k? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:42, 6 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 01:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aadu 2 (film)[edit]

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

Film has not begun principal filming. Per WP:NFF, "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles . . . ." Rebb ing 18:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet any confirmed news about the movie. It's still on planning. JackTracker (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

expanded WP:BEFORE:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Aadu 2 Midhun Manuel Thomas Jayasurya

Delete for now. As occasional exceptions have been allowed, "should not", does not mean cannot ever. I feel safe in looking beyond a boiler-plated nomination statement...and in looking I found that in January 2016 the director wrote of his plans to make Aadu 2,[38] and although in March his next project was confirmed as filming in Thrissur,[39] I was unable to confirm that Aadu 2 was the one being shot. This article may simply be TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:33, 5 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 01:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretham[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NFF as a film that has not yet commenced principal photography. Rebb ing 17:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF. JackTracker (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded WP:BEFORE:

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Pretham Ranjith Sankar Jayasurya

Delete for now. In February2016 we learn that the director and star have teamed up and that the project is expected to begin filming in May 2016. The project is gettng coverage to meet WP:GNG and while simply TOOSOON right now, the article can be WP:REFUNDED and expanded and sourced accordingly once filming is confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:19, 5 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maryna Viazovska[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Subject has written a paper with a purported solution. The paper has not yet been published or even refereed. ubiquity (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I considered making this article myself, eventually passing on it because I felt that it would be hard to defend at an AfD. But we have plenty of sources on her (multiple) new results, calling them a major breakthrough [40] [41] [42] [43]. It's probably too soon for WP:PROF but this work may already pass WP:GNG. And eventually she's going to be notable by our usual standards, based on the work she's already done, so what's the point of deleting the article and then coming back a couple of years later and re-creating it again? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Part of the problem for me is that the article, as currently written, only asserts that she has done this terrific thing that she really hasn't done yet - sort of like an article about a runner that only asserts "Runner X says he will break the three-minute mile this summer." It also provides no sources, in an arena where the average reader can't be expected to be able to sort out reputable references from hype. If you think she's done lots of other notable stuff, and if there are sources that say so, why not add that to the article, and make it about her being a notable mathematician or academic in general? You (or whoever) can add that she has an as-yet unpublished paper that is expected to solve the sphere-packing problem. Then, if it's proven that she has solved it, that statement can be revised. But as it stands now, I think there's not enough meat in the article to be worth keeping. ubiquity (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - So your problem is that it's a brand-new stub, whose creator has requested help expanding it at WT:WPM, and that there hasn't yet been time for that expansion to happen yet. Got it. But that's not much of a valid deletion rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, my problem is it's a completely unsourced article that makes a single assertion about something that might not happen. To me that's a valid deletion rationale. If the article can be expanded into something reasonable, that's great. Maybe it should just be Draftified to give people a chance to improve it, or to wait it out until it's true? ubiquity (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not completely unsourced. Your problem is that the sources are listed as "external links" and not properly formatted as sources, because it's a brand-new stub that still needs work. But the sources are already there. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about something she has not yet done. The paper is written and publicly available on the web. It has not yet appeared as a refereed publication. But respectable mathematicians are saying she's solved the problem. It's not like saying someone will run a three-minute mile this summer; rather it's like saying they've already done it but the judges' official ruling hasn't been publicly announced yet. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I realize there has been something of a stir in the blogosphere about this problem being recently (allegedly) solved. But I'm not generally very impressed with popular media as sources for scientific subjects, and this is no exception. The subject does not (as of yet) pass WP:PROF, and while it certainly seems possible that eventually she will, I don't feel like we're there yet. Sławomir
Biały 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote to weak keep. The unambiguous assessment of Sarnak, noted below, lends considerably greater reliability to the fluff news sources referenced in the article. I think the subject now meets GNG. Sławomir
Biały 17:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I think the deletion argument given in the nomination is very weak; she is the subject of reasonably serious news coverage (in particular, the Quanta article) now, not after the paper gets published. --JBL (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep vote from me too. Tayste (edits) 22:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is said that popular media are cited as sources. Let us note that within the last few days a mathematician who won a Fields Medal and who has somewhat diverse mathematical interests edited several sphere-packing-related articles on Wikipedia to assert that this new discovery has been made. The paper, if not yet refereed, is publicly available on the arxiv and seems to have received favorable notice from respectable mathematicians. We can't cite those facts as reliable sources, but they are evidence that we will soon have better sources to cite. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep she meets WP:GNG (this is pretty rare for mathematicians, specially for young ones), and also per common sense, because so many notable mathematicians are favourable impressed by her work, and they know math better than most Wikipedia's editors. (I don't know if I can comment here without an account, but I felt I should) 189.63.176.45 (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note that commenting without an account is completely ok, as long as you don't then weigh in a second time under a different identity. However, the decision will be made according to the consensus of policy-based arguments, rather than on the number of people choosing one side or the other, so your choice to invoke GNG is a much better way to go than Tayste's WP:JUSTAVOTE. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The objection seems to be that she has not yet accomplished the feat described. The grounds for thinking that is that her paper hasn't gone through the refereeing process yet. There is a difference between saying she hasn't done it and saying it's not yet formally recognized by a standard process. In many cases, one might have no authoritative assurance of soundness besides that process. In this case, we have this item (also perhaps not yet refereed) in which it appears that four mathematicians other than Maryna Viazovska who are competent to publish research in this area state that she solved the problem in eight dimensions, and risk damage to their reputations for being wrong in a way that a referee would not, since referees are (almost always) anonymous. We also have one Fields-Medal-winning mathematician asserting the same thing in his Wikipedia edits. The fact that something is in some sense official or formal doesn't always mean it's more credible or done more competently than otherwise, nor even necessarily that it's less "authoritative" in the sense that would be relevant here. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage, though recent, is significant. The coverage to date already meets WP:PROF ~~criteria~~ criterion #1. ^Bongo_matic 09:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Any chance I can convince you to say "criterion #1"? And similarly "This criterion is..." and "These criteria are..."?) Michael Hardy (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per enormous amount of coverage as GNG if people want to actually claim that it's not PROF#C1 yet. (P.S. in addition to the policy points, please consider know how unfriendly towards women this and their achievements AfD makes Wikipedia look.) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "friendliness" or "unfriendliness" is a consideration. This should be an argument to avoid during deletion discussion. I still don't see coverage in reliable scientific sources, like review articles in peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, etc. The citations in the article are to Forbes, The Huffington Post, and similar, which are not reliable peer-reviewed mathematical sources. Sławomir
Biały 14:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but they quote other mathematicians, who've read the papers. Peter Sarnak has commented: “It’s stunningly simple, as all great things are. You just start reading the paper and you know this is correct.”[44] --Amakuha (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF, as the result obtained by Maryna has already received a wide coverage in the scientific community as well as in the media. --TheStrayCat (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG + WP:PROF. Note: Viazovska claimed that she and her colleagues have used a computer to validate the proof of 24-dimensional case (automated proof checking?).[45] I suppose, they already did the same for 8-dimensional case, as the proofs are really similar and concise (the second paper is just 12 pages long). --Amakuha (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- According to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qlZjarkS_g the computer part is verifying positivity of the modular forms she constructs, and that part could in principle be done by hand. It's not like Hales' huge computerized case analysis. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  What I mean is, they've already verified the proof on a computer (at least they claim so). So there's a very little chance that there is a mistake and the proof is wrong. --Amakuha (talk) 23:57, 7 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sekou Bunch[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician whose only stated claim of notability is having been a non-winning contestant in a reality show and then writing a song about it -- and whose only "source" is an IMDb profile. A person like this might be eligible for a Wikipedia article if he were the subject of reliable source coverage which verified that he passed one or more WP:NMUSIC criteria, but does not get an automatic inclusion freebie or a sourcing exemption just because he exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. Nick Number (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vidgo[edit]

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

Hasn't even launched yet; clear-cut instance of WP:TOOSOON IagoQnsi (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, WP:TOOSOON. There's not even a definite launch date mentioned in the sources. Userfy so the creator can restore when and if. ubiquity (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon at best, nothing currently convincing any better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dooqu[edit]

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

WP:BLP, sourced exclusively to social networking platforms with not a shred of reliable source coverage shown, of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his own presence on Soundcloud and Facebook verifies that he exists -- he must be the subject of media coverage to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of anything approaching a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not convincing any applicable notability yet, article is not currently convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Shank[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a podcaster with no strong or properly sourced claim to passing WP:CREATIVE -- the only sources here are his own appearances on other people's podcasts, and a press release announcing his hiring as circulation manager of a small town community newspaper (which is not something that gets a person into Wikipedia either.) A podcaster is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that he exists -- he earns one by being the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources, but nothing like that has been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, notability has clearly not been established here. GAB^Hello! 16:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was a business-side manager of small papers in Arizona. I am not even sure if the circulation manager of the New York Times would be notable for such, but not of the Bisbee Review. He is also a podcaster, but there are thousands upon thousands of such, and nothing to demonstrate he is a notable one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for all applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 WNBA season[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about next year's season of a sports league for which this year's season hasn't even started yet. We don't need to create advance placeholder pages for things about which there's nothing substantive to say yet except "this will happen" -- we wait until there is some real substance to add before we start the article at all. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in October or November, or early next year, when there's actually something to say about it. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Too soon. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. There's nothing of note to say about this future season yet. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:TOOSOON on that part. Matt294069 is coming 00:32, 7 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 02:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 390[edit]

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

No evidence of notability beyond a passing mention in a couple of news articles, about service changes, not really "significant coverage" Jeni ^(talk) 12:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no need for a separate article about every single bus route in existence. User: Sheepythemouse —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted above not every bus route in london needs an article .... We already have List of bus routes in London which is more than sufficient. –Davey2010^Talk 15:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like there is some coverage of this route's history and significance in the Blacker source listed in the article, but I don't think this topic has received enough coverage in secondary sources to pass WP:GNG]. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—not every bus route merits an article, and this one at this time does not. Imzadi 1979 → 22:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nordic Dragon 20:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list article. There doesn't at present appear to be sufficient coverage to support an article, but as there is some coverage it's not impossible that more will exist in the future, the content isn't problematic and could form part of a notable article so I strongly prefer redirection rather than straight deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that transport-related routes only deserve an article if they're notable in some way other than just being a bus route - and this one does not. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:57, 7 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate Clearing Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. The first two sources are from their own website. Greek Legend (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not fulfill these standards. I did find this, but it is paywalled; couldn't find much else. The penultimate reference in the article is dead, and the last one doesn't actually mention the company. GAB^Hello! 16:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Murty Classical Library of India. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 petition to remove Sheldon Pollock from Murty Classical Library[edit]

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

This article's notability guidelines come under WP:EVENT. Though this has been covered in news, I don't find any reason that this passes WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING.

There is no historical event going on. This should be deleted under WP:NOTNEWS.

The contents can be a reduced and added to Sheldon Pollock and Murty Classical Library of India. Greek Legend (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MCLI. Good point. Both Sheldon Pollock and Murty Classical Library of India already have a short section on this petition, which covers the relevant points. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First time I am reading a vote by the page creator, "Redirect". You and Kautilya3 worked on this page.--Greek Legend (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Redirect - This is just one of millions of Change.org petitions.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murty Classical Library of India, where the corresponding section can be expanded a little. I have always had my doubts about this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More than adequately covered in the article on Sheldon Pollock. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sheldon Pollock or Murty Classical Library of India HemaChandra88 (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you edit Greek Legend's edit, using the phrase "I"? Mike V may also be interested to know why. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I have no memory of editing anything other than appending my own comment. I have no idea what happened.HemaChandra88 (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's assume good faith, and guess that you corrected the intro with good intentions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JJ: If you look carefully, you'll see that the text was not infact added by HemaChandra88 but existed beforehand itself [46]. The diff parser as usual misinterpreted the text block as a new addition and messed up the highlighting. The User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff gadget is much more accurate. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Masked Man of Mega Might Weird! Thanks for that info.. HemaChandra88 (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I was wrong. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:50, 6 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acidic Fitness[edit]

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

All sources are WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:COMPANY. Greek Legend (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon at best, nothing yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears entirely promotional. No independent sources in the article, I couldn't find any either. Completely fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:04, 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. postdlf (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslims who won international beauty pageants[edit]

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

Not one of the mentioned ladies is named a muslim in their own articles The Banner talk 10:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JDDJS (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SYNTHESIS based on where these pageants come from, with sources that do not say anything about the pageants' religious background. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SYNTH as above — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:15, 5 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 Digital Pictures. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen X (video game)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Looking up Citizen X on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I get over 40,000 hits. But when I look up "citizen x" and "digital pictures", I get 3. Two GameRankings listings, and it's mentioned once, in an article by 1UP. Redirecting to Digital Pictures should be okay. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Digital Pictures per nom. Dearth of secondary source coverage. No historic reviews listed in MobyGames. czar 17:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect perhaps if needed as this is still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 6 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. Decent arguments on both sides leading to a valid difference of opinion on the applicability of the notability guidelines. E.M.Gregory's research suggesting some potentially usable sources. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Denise McGregor[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIME. No significant ongoing coverage. The reference titled "unsolved-melbourne-murders-you-may-never-have-heard-about" says it all. TheLongTone (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the references i used shows that it made the front page of The Age newspaper at the time. Something that makes the front page - and The Age was a high brow broadsheet, not a low market tabloid - is pretty notable, yet the article has been AfD'd? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Front page news, graphic TV reenactment and interest in the cold case 35 years later satisfy WP:CRIME. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep - per WP:CRIME.BabbaQ (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep There does seem to be ongoing interest is this case.[47].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing interest??? One journo desparate for a topic for the weeks column mentions it.TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CRIME. The victim was not notable nor was the crime "unusual" nothing persistent in coverage. Article makes grand claim of being one of the most infamous cold cases in Melbourne with zero evidence. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment something that made the front page of a high brow broadsheet when it happened and had a Mr. Cruel type reenactment that was so graphic it was banned by the broadcasting authorities? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. Subject falls short of WP:CRIME and WP:EVENT, as well as WP:GNG. Front-page coverage of a heinous, horrifying crime of this sort is usually routine and doesn't, in itself, establish notability. See WP:GNG ("significant coverage"). Sorry, Mr. Austin. Rebb ing 07:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I think you're right. This should be closed as delete. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[48], [49], [50]. Has someone duone a good search on Australian news arcives? A 1978 murder needs that before deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some of the Delete !votes claims that the article subject has had plenty of media coverage, but is basically referring to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That is irrelevant to notability. This article should be kept.BabbaQ (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ther is a difference between substantial & trivial coverage. Coverage of this case is of the latter variety; articles that are essentially lists of unsolved murders. Of which there are many.TheLongTone (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, BabbQ is using WP:ITFLOATSMYBOAT. His problem not mine

Toney, i may call you Toney, mayn't i? There is no such thing as WP: ITFLOATS MYBOAT, outside your fevered imagination. Interesting strategem? I take it you are trying to confuse people! Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that I'm not Australian and am not familiar with search engines down under, Here: [51] (DAVID HELLABY / 1951-2009; A giant in journalism

TULETT Fred. The Southland Times [Invercargill, New Zealand] 16 Sep 2009: 11.) It also ran in the The Dominion Post (Wellington) is a 2009 obit on Aussie journalist Dave (David) Hellaby who was nominated for a "Logie Award for the TV script Who Killed Denise McGregor. I continue to suspect that better searches would turn up more sourcing, but that what has been found justifies keeping.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any confident signs this can be better improved aside from the current and only details. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If the very source verifies it's not a well-known event, then it shouldn't be included on here. Parsley Man (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ultimately Wikipedia is for non-Wikipedians, not the likes of our merry few. We painstakingly parse these things through the lens of our beloved WP:GNG, but mere mortals who are stuck in bed with the flu, or waiting for a flight, enjoy being able to go down Wikipedia rabbit holes about salacious subject matter like local/national/just particularly disturbing murders (plane crashes are my own non-secret shame; so sue me). I think this crosses the WP:GNG level in any event given the ongoing interest in certain Australian journalistic circles about the case. It is certainly more notable than some go-nowhere start-up company offering a "solution" to something that was never a problem—not that a comparison is appropriate, but I see way too many of those articles treated more seriously than this one that is actually, in contrast, marginally fascinating. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twtxt[edit]

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

Recentism. App created in February 2016, barely over a month ago. Most references are to Github, hardly a reliable source. Alexf^(talk) 14:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON -- though it might be wp:crystalballing to estimate better luck in the future. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as use/relevancy of decentral applications hard to measure by definition. --Wikingr (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The Linux Magazine source is something, but there's just not enough coverage yet. No objection to Incubating as a draft for now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 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 Merge as this is enough to close and it's clear no one suggests the article be kept entirely (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four TV game[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Looking "fantastic four tv game" and "fantastic four jakks pacific" does not bring up several reliable sources in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine and is only mentioned in passing. A possible redirect to Jakks Pacific or Fantastic Four#Video games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fantastic Four#Video games. That section does not currently mention this game, it just has a vague reference to multiple 2005 games related to the films. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge. Fails WP:GNG. No sources. A little surprised that this article lasted 10 whole years. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fantastic Four § Video games. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete, though I don't see that much content here that would improve encyclopedic value at Fantastic Four § Video games, tbh. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:05, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Effects of Sterilization Law on the Deaf in Nazi Germany[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia article about a topic, but an WP:ESSAY about the effects of an encyclopedia topic — even the creator's username betrays that this is a misplaced collegiate essay. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 07:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is an essay. Anything useful might be merged to Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring. JMWt (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing wrong with an article in this encyclopedia about the "effects" of something, as long as the effects have received significant coverage and discussion in reliable secondary sources (see, e.g., Effects of cannabis, Effects of the April 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption, Effects of Agent Orange on the Vietnamese people, etc-). However, I am not sure that this article, in its current state, can be brought up to encyclopedic standards, and we should probably delete (per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:TNT) to create a redlink, which will hopefully incentivize the creation of an appropriate article on this topic. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting topic but as has been noted, it's an essay. It actually could make a good article but it has the tone of an essay and would need to be fundamentally re-written. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a fair chance that Nazi persecution of the deaf is notable, but we'd have to rewrite the article from scratch to fix this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draft/Userfy. WP:NOTESSAY, but it does have potential. Not Wikipedia-suitable in its current state though. It also appears to be an educational assignment, based on the creator's username. Anyone know of Hancock College by chance? GabeIglesia (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. I agree that a redlink might incentivize the creation of an appropriate article on this topic. - tucoxn\^talk 20:04, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Morgan (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet unelected candidate for a local county board. As always, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate for office, and this isn't a level of office where even winning the seat in November would get him a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- so we can judge his includability only on the basis of whether he would already have qualified for an article before becoming a candidate, but nothing else claimed here (legislative aide, student body president, board of directors of a local community center, etc.) gets him over any of Wikipedia's other inclusion criteria either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No inherent notability per WP:POLITICIAN and couldn't find evidence of any wider coverage. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if elected to the Washtenaw County Board, he would probably not be notable. He is clearly not notable while just a candidate for it. Especially since it is before the filing deadline, so we have no clue if he will even get the nomination, and he might even withdraw before the primary election. So right now he might win the nomination to be his party's candidate for a seat, that even if he wins would not confer on him notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Per WP:POLITICIAN, item #2 states: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." How do we quantify "significant" and how do we know when he has crossed that threshhold? The demarcation seems a bit nebulous. Bluetiger50 (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluetiger50: In this case there are two concerns: one is that the positions listed in the article don't appear to qualify Morgan as a "major" political figure, and the independent coverage doesn't seem to say much that would make him any more major than anyone else in those positions. The second concern is the one over significant coverage. This is a qualitative judgement, but it's just a restatement of the basic rule of notability as applied to biographies. That rule is basically what WP:POLITICIAN is alluding to in the footnotes: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. In Morgan's case, currently there is only one article from an independent and reliable source cited on the page which could reasonably be called in-depth, the Ann Arbor News/MLive.com article, and as a local newspaper it's questionable whether the Ann Arbor News contributes much to notability without evidence of wider coverage. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally for a local political figure to pass WP:GNG, the coverage has to nationalize to a degree far beyond what local political figures routinely get in their local media — for instance, if he were getting substantive coverage in The New York Times or The Washington Post, then there'd be an obvious case that he was significantly more notable than the norm for people at that level of politics by virtue of being considered newsworthy by media far beyond his own local area. But local media have an obligation to cover local politics and local elections, which means that all candidates for office always get some media coverage — so that kind of coverage isn't in and of itself enough to get a person into Wikipedia. If the role itself isn't conferring an automatic NPOL pass, then the coverage has to show that he's a lot more notable, for some genuinely substantive reason, than the tens of thousands of other people who have merely been candidates in local elections. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with Bearcat. All candidates don't always get local coverage. But this guy wouldn't meet notability requirement even if he got elected, so I think it should be deleted. VanEman (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Follow Up Thank you all for the input. I had originally wanted to create this article because this guy was the youngest delegate to the national convention in 2008 and could become the youngest commissioner for this county ever. Bearcat, in your opinion, does that qualify as something more substantial? Agree that not all local politicians get extensive media coverage. Bluetiger50 (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "X" isn't a role that would pass NPOL in and of itself, then "youngest X" doesn't inherently make him any more notable than any other X, because it's a distinction that can always potentially be outdone again in the future. And "will be the first or last or oldest or youngest or other superlativeist or first minority-group something if he wins an election that he hasn't yet won as of today" doesn't assist, either — a notability claim that's hinged on what might become true in the future doesn't get a person over the bar if that claim isn't already true today. And while being a delegate to a party's national convention is something that we can mention in an article that has already cleared the notability bar in other ways, it's not a claim that gets a person over the notability bar in and of itself either. And finally, please note that I didn't say that all local politicians get extensive media coverage — but all local politicians do get some degree of media coverage, and you haven't demonstrated that Morgan's level of coverage is particularly "extensive" compared to most or many others. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a young person attending a convention is not evidence of notability unfortunately. AusLondonder (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not satisfying any applicable notability, not yet convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah and the Big Jelly Belly Fish[edit]

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

One of several articles written to promote Ashley H.A. Williams and her work. A search brings up nothing to show that this self-published book is ultimately notable enough for an entry. I'd nominate it as promotion, except that it's just non-promotional enough to where it'd squeak by those guidelines. This is related to the AfDs for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A taste of honey tv and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Hands Learn My A,B,C's. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Hands Learn My A,B,C's The creator of this article, Honeyazul24 is probably not Ashley H.A. Williams herself, but still a COI editor; her username closely resembles the name of one of the presenters of the show A taste of honey tv (also nominated for deletion). All of Honeyazul24's contributions lack independent, reliable sources, and this one is no exception. Mduvekot (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm drawing my assumptions since I've found one social media account owned by Williams that shares the same handle. Other social media accounts have a similar handle, minus the 24. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, have been unable to find any reliable sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of microfluidics research groups[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOT DIRECTORY. Probably none of these groups is sufficiently notable for a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this makes me think of Draft:List of companies in Greater Richmond, Virginia which I also felt is simply unnecessary considering the overall appearance of it. Simply not an acceptable article, SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Listcruft violating NOTADIRECTORY. Basically just a collection of external links to homepages of non-notable research groups. --Randykitty (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnotable listcruft (no evidence of notability for the set, even though some of the groups might be notable on their own). I could not find any valid keep arguments in the former two discussions. Though they are 4 and 5 years old, for the sake of discussion, I ping Nergaal, Riffic, Avala, Stvfetterly. Per WP:VOTESTACK, also pinging LibStar, ~~BelloWello~~ (indef block), Postdlf though the "delete" side does not seem to be in danger of under-representation. Tigraan (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of microfluidics related companies If there are more of the sort to be ferreted out I have't found them yet. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 6 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AP Government US Foreign Trade[edit]

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

It's an essay. Does not belong on Wikipedia. JDDJS (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and watchlisted for attention since none of this clearly suggests how's it an acceptable Wikipedia article with there being no signs of convincingly keeping. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. GAB^Hello! 17:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. - tucoxn\^talk 20:17, 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 nomination withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Davidson[edit]

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

Biography, sourced only to the Weebly page of a local organization named after him, of a person notable only as a local city attorney. This does not constitute enough notability, or enough reliable source coverage, to get a Wikipedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up as necessary. Confirmed President of Georgia State Senate passes WP:POLITICIAN.[52] This may take some digging through Google Books, but sources to support the content appear to be available. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I somehow missed the buried Georgia State Senate claims in the process of looking at the fact that the bulk of the article focused almost entirely on his role as a local attorney and as the namesake of a couple of local institutions. Referencing improvement is definitely needed, but consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a state legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Ladd[edit]

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

Despite his high number of YouTube subscribers, a search for coverage in reliable sources only results in brief mentions (these brief mentions being nothing more than name-checks). I couldn't find any coverage that was specifically about him. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. I found this but wouldn't in anyway deem it reliable or confirming Ladd's notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage on him specifically is simply insubstantial to merit an article. GAB^Hello! 17:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not significant as a single subject. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 15:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No depth of coverage in reliable independent sources, so does not pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:04, 4 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Smith (Political Scientist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written by the subject himself and thus a conflict of interest, of a political scientist with no strong claim to passing WP:NACADEMICS. The referencing here is entirely to primary sources -- his own staff profile on the website of his own university, his own book's promotional page on the website of its own publisher, and six articles where he's the bylined author of the piece rather than the subject of it. No reliable source coverage about him has been shown, which is what it takes to get a Wikipedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 1100 cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe and clean up. Some of his works are very significant by political science standards (e.g. [53], also triggering replies to Smith e.g. here), and per WP:PROF primary sources such as institutional profiles are acceptable if at least one of the core criteria is demonstrable. —Nizolan ^(talk) 08:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The level at which he is cited establishes him as a major contributor in his field, thus passing one of the guidelines for notability of an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus Energy[edit]

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

Found no RS source in English news sites. If this is from UK then there must be something in English. Fails WP:COMPANY. Greek Legend (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a new company. The given references are listings rather than substantial coverage of the firm. Nor are my searches (Guardian, Highbeam, Google) identifying anything better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as newly founded and nothing better at all for notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 6 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phany Padaraju[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has a brief mention in only one RS-source. Greek Legend (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no convincing signs of the solid applicable notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is lack of internal notability and fails WP:NMODEL. --Helper V1 (talk) 20:47, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hands Learn My A,B,C's[edit]

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

The article doesn't prove notability according to Wikipedia:Notability. NikolaiHo 00:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything about this book other than e-commerce site listings and Wikipedia mirrors. WP:ITEXISTS, but existing is not a sign of notability. I have a strong feeling that this is the author herself writing about her own work, so I'd like to ask that she not try to edit about anything that directly pertains to her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonah and the Big Jelly Belly Fish and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A taste of honey tv. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator of this article, Honeyazul24 is probably not Ashley H.A. Williams herself, but still a COI editor; her username closely resembles the name of one of the presenters of the show A taste of honey tv (also nominated for deletion). All of Honeyazul24's contributions lack independent, reliable sources, and this one is no exception. Mduvekot (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A search for the username shows that the author has used this as a handle in the past and it's very similar to her Twitter handle as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, have been unable to find any reliable sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the apostrophe catastrophe. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:14, 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.