Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 March	7 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group[edit]

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

Apparently no longer active and never been notable Qualitatis (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Bassem Eid, with no objections to the article being kept if further information and reliable sources are provided during this AfD. I am slightly surprised at the nominator's claim that the organisation is "apparently no longer active", as the GNews feed gives a substantial number of hits from within the last month. Almost all of these, however, relate more to the group's founder, Bassem Eid, and so do not give grounds for notability independent of him. Having said that, GNews also provides a scattering of hits from the past fifteen years (most recently about six months ago) that do not mention Eid, and a GBooks search provides a large number of hits, though a large proportion of these are short mentions - so a determined enough editor may be able to find sufficient more substantive sources to justify a standalone article. PWilkinson (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Here: [1] a long article about how he came to found PHRMG. Here: [2] a cluster of recent news articles showing that it is still active. Here [3] a google books search showing the group's impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps if it can be improved. Familiar attention may also be needed for in-depth searches. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage about the group to show they meet notability. The citations found by E.M.Gregory above are about people connected in some way to the group, and are simply mentions that they belonged to the group, but don't speak about the group itself, for the most part. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:onel5969, You needed to have time (a lot of time) to keep reading that (very long) source [[4]], to the part where he founded this organization. That's what made my jaw drop (the moment when the quit B'Tselem, and the reason why he quit) and made me realize that we have all been looking at the wrong decade. (see my note below)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Far too notable to delete. but Unless someone makes time to build an article, although there is sufficient material in Hebrew, English and some European languages, unless someone makes time to build a short article, it may make sense to combine this with Bassem Eid, the founder/director of this (smallish) NGO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the scoop. Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group was at its peak of notability and influence in the 1990s. It was covered by all the usual suspects The Guardian, Financial Times, and the rest of the big intl dailies. All I had to do was run a proquest search. There was more, but I added a Washington Post article and I think it now has enough sourcing to be minimally acceptable. However, someone should go back to the old papers and do a serious expand of this ground-breaking, and ABSOLUTELY NOTABLE Palestinian NGO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also p. 147 of Joshua Muravchik's book , Making David into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources and with consideration for things 20 years old not showing up in internet searches. Also notability is not temporary. ~Kvng (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following improvements by User:E.M.Gregory. (Replacing merge vote above.) PWilkinson (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Never close so early but high/secondary schools are kept per SO (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford International College[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2008. Only obvious target for redirect or merge per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES seems to be Cram school. NebY (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be enough sourcing to prove it exists as a full time secondary school at least in China, so keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:56, 8 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. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cardelle[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor noted only for supporting and guest roles, and sourced only to a single unreliable "celebrity bio" database with no reliable source coverage shown. But even a claim that he satisfied the demands of WP:NACTOR, debatable but not entirely impossible here, would still have to be supported by reliable source coverage in media, and does not give any actor a no-sourcing-required notability freebie just because he exists. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if this can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, information has been added in the meanwhile on a prize and it is reliably (though weakly) sourced. I am not sure how significant the festival is, but may be we should take the person a bit more seriously.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches shows that he passes WP:GNG, and his resume doesn't show how he passes WP:NACTOR or WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Trone[edit]

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

Subject is probably not notable per WP:NPOL, but more importantly this seems to be a soapbox piece, written by single-purpose account Mzxp125 (blocked in February by Vanjagenije for being a sock-puppet), exactly at the time when the subject entered an apparently lucrative House seat race. In other words: this thing is fishy, to say the least. bender235 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is clearly a professional puff piece. The original editor, and all of the early editors, are single-purpose accounts. The remaining edits are people like me - toning down the extreme rhetoric, or purely stylistic edits. If he wins, it will be a different situation. Otherwise, he should be mentioned only as an "also ran" in any article about the election. He's simply not otherwise noteworthy. John2510 (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the company is notable enough for an article but he is questionable himself and, at best, this would be best as a redirect to the company article. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep: withdrawn by nominator Jonathunder (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wini McQueen[edit]

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

Non notable artist with no reliable sources found. Only brief mentions are shown. Tinton5 (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on: This page was created as part of Art+Feminism edit-a-thon yesterday. Please give us some time to add reliable sources. — Ganeshk (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Solo exhibitions in a major museum as well as participation in group exhibitions. Passes WP:ARTIST easily. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BASIC with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NARTIST. Her innovative work (she is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique) is collected by at least two museums, the High Museum of Art and the Museum of Arts and Sciences in Macon, and is included in the book Stitching Memories: African-American Story Quilts. Mduvekot (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per arguments by Gobonobo and Mduvekot.--Theredproject (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to above comments and seeing this page expand rapidly with additional sources I could not locate at hand, I wish to withdraw this nomination. Sorry for the inconvenience. Tinton5 (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tinton5. No worries. Jonathunder (talk) 00:13, 11 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) 01:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin H. Ogbadu[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Professors are not generally considered notable and Wikipedia is not a place to publish your CV Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. His citation record on Google scholar looks like that of a successful academic but not enough to pass WP:PROF#C1, and none of the other accomplishments listed in the article stand out to me as something that would confer notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep His publications at Google Scholar fall short of what is usually expected for a professor to have an article here per WP:ACADEMIC. However, at the Ahmadu Bello University he was chair of the biochemistry department, 1987-1993,[5] and dean of the Faculty of Science, 1991-1994.[6] Those are arguably notable positions. --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being an head of a department and Dean of a faculty are not enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC threshold. Deans or head of a departments are generally not considered notable unless they meet one of more of the criteria listed at WP:ACADEMIC or other notability criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Evidence of notability not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find any reason to believe he meets the notability guideline for academics or the general notability guideline. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herman (DJ, Record Producer, Songwriter)[edit]

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

A probable case of WP:TOOSOON. A notable label is mentioned, but the subject's work is limited to a debut single released just last month. I do not believe that they currently satisfy any of the WP:NSINGER criteria. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 22:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The view history page reveals this article was written by the subject. ShelbyMarion (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found only a few expected links and nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I originally tagged this for speedy deletion under WP:A7. The tag was removed by User:Adam9007 apparently on the basis that the subject has just signed to Armada Music and had his first single released by them. Fair enough, but would you like to voice an opinion here now, Adam? I think the article should be deleted per WP:NOTPROMOTION because it was clearly written for self-promotion by the musician himself and we shouldn't encourage that. On the other hand the fi.wp article at https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Mobster has a page history that indicates that the person behind these two pseudonyms might be notable, though the article there has been severely pruned – possibly by the artist himself indicating that he may want to disown his former "DJ Mobster" persona (he didn't mention it in the article here). Further research is needed. —SMALLJIM 16:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me like the article is vastly incomplete. Adam9007 (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly a promotional article. Searches do not show how they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is clearly to keep. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MySocialCloud[edit]

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

Promotional article--The only thing they are notable for is the people who have invested in it. This is essentially tabloid coverage based on trivial human interest. See the adjacent AfD with duplicated ontent. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject and founders are covered in reliable sources. The page's promotional language needs to be cut down though. Meatsgains (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Reliable sources! This article may need to be rewritten.--27century (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@27century: There may be enough reliable sources, but the one you added, www.forbes.com/sites, is not one of them. That is not Forbes magazine, but a collection of blogs with little or no editorial oversight. I can't recall an occasion at WP:RSN where they were considered reliable for more than the writer's opinion, certainly not for statements of fact. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy perhaps as there's some coverage but this may simply be the expected coverage, not as solid as it could be. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page needs work, but nothing that requires deletion. We just need to cut down peacock and concentrate on the company not the founders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWisePowder (talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The article has sources from TechCrunch, Business Insider, The Huffington Post, and TheStreet.com. Here is an article in the Los Angeles Times. Cunard (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as G12 - copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DiPSMUN[edit]

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

Besides this, I can't find any significant, in-depth coverage to warrant an article on this student organization. GAB^Hello! 21:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN organization. reddogsix (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:50, 7 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. Already deleted per WP:CSD G5 by User:Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdoms and Lords[edit]

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

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 17:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found some links but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable video game passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Note that the WP:COMMONNAME appears to be "Kingdoms & Lords". Pocket gamer review, Gamezebo review, 148Apps review (author has good credentials). No other meaningful hits in custom RS search. This review looks good and author has credentials. This review also looks good and author has credentials. @Czar: per request.— HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't count the 148Apps (see WT:VG/RS discussion) and All About Windows Phone reviews as reliable, but that still leaves two reviews (Gamezebo, Pocket Gamer) and possibly a third (I'm on the fence about Windows Central...) If the Windows Central staff is considered reliable, we're at the bare, bare minimum for writing an article, and if there is zero other critical reception or interest in its development, etc., I imagine the game would still be better covered in a list of Gameloft games, as this is not their first to receive this type of minimal treatment. czar 14:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable by itself as a generic mobile title. Three reviews does not mean it should have its own article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:55, 6 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) 01:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basorge Tariah, Jr.[edit]

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

Sadly, no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER and I myself patrolled this at NPP with plans to nominate for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG.-- danntm ^T _C 23:26, 7 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 kept, as the nominator isn't proposing deletion; see the bullet that includes the text "moving or merging" at WP:SK. Redirects and merges don't result in the deletion of content, so they need to be handled separately. Contact me if you need help proposing and/or completing a merge. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lily font[edit]

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

The subject isn't notable enough to have its own article, as evidenced by the low view-count (average of one view per day, sometimes zero). That no one is searching for the Lily font proves it isn't notable enough and the contents should be merged with Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom#Christening fonts. Firebrace (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Center of Concern[edit]

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

Not only are there no independent reliable sources about the article, but apparently the organization's own website can't be relied upon. Accordingly, there is an utter lack of published sources, so the article should be deleted for failing WP:GNG.

As a secondary matter, a person holding himself out as the president of the organization has also requested deletion of the article. However, my request is based on whether the organization qualifies under Wikipedia policies and not from the related party's request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the original article and I see no cause for deleting it for lack of prominence: there are whole lists and categories of social and development institutions of less prominence than this. I've done my best to get an update on the article and to use all resources on the web to substantiate it. They have abandoned their old website as too expensive and are working on a new one, but I believe there's enough outside information to corroborate the reliability of the report here. Where doubts arise, please use the "citation needed" route, but please don't overuse it. The claims made are not really that far-fetched, given what I've referenced on the organization.Jzsj (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The University of Notre Dame Archives has an enormous volume of materials related to the Center. They might assist in finding older materials to establish notability. See http://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/coc.xml My own thought is that this subject is very likely notable. It's an established NGO with some big names attached to its history. While that doesn't confer notability itself, it would be very strange for an NGO of the period to have always stayed just under the radar. I more suspect the problem is false positives when searching the name. I don't think we should follow through with the requested deletion rather than fix the article. If there's so much problem with what's here right now, let's userify or draftify until more research can be done to address the individual's concerns. I think the big worry was that the article had suggested there was an ongoing affiliation with the Society of Jesus or the Catholic Church. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Here's some sources:
  McCarthy, Abagail (July 17, 1993). "Dealing with Concerns at Center of Concern". The Times-News. Hendersonville, North Carolina. p. 5B – via Google News.
  "Center of Concern's 25 Years Living Gospel of Justice". National Catholic Reporter. September 20, 1996 – via HighBeam Research.
  Allen, Rick (May 22, 1993). "Jesuit Group Urges Moral Public Policy; Think Tank Active in Health Care Reform". Washington Post – via HighBeam Research.
  Lefevere, Patricia (December 23, 2011). "Center Works toward Transformation". National Catholic Reporter – via HighBeam Research.
  Hyer, Marjorie (July 29, 1989). "'Bleeding Hearts' In Unlikely Setting;Liberal Catholic Think Tank in Northeast Focuses on Problems of World Injustice". Washington Post – via HighBeam Research.
  Lefevere, Patricia (December 23, 2011). "Website Provides Justice Resources for Educators". National Catholic Reporter – via HighBeam Research.
  And that's just a few, from just two of the linked resources above. I'll be glad to run through more databases later. In addition to these article-type sources, there are numerous instances of citations to works published by this NGO—giving an indication of its notability as a publisher of "think tank" type works. While that doesn't quite fit within the usual WP:CORP/WP:GNG-type analysis, I think it should definitely be considered in the same way that WP:PROF considers that sort of impact. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Here are some more sources:
    D'Antonio, William V.; Davidson, James D.; Hoge, Dean R.; Meyer, Katherine (2001). American Catholics: Gender, Generation, and Commitment. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press. pp. 90–92. ISBN 0-7591-0041-1.
    Krier Mich, Marvin L. (1998). "Calls for Action: Octogesima Adveniens, Justice in the World, and Centers for Analysis and Advocacy". Catholic Social Teaching and Movements. Mystic, Connecticut: Twenty-Third Publications. pp. 198–200. ISBN 0-89622-936-X.
    Unfortunately, I lack access to a number of databases that probably have more information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No way a 45-year old NGO, which worked on reform, is not notable. The article just need work.-- danntm ^T _C 23:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I know nothing of it, but it looks significant to me, not a mere one-man band. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD A7: Article about an eligible subject that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mokhi media[edit]

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

I had prodded (since contested) this as under WP:ORG, but I see now that it is a youtube channel. I am unable to find any reliable, independent sources that talk about this subject as discussed at WP:GNG and WP:WEB. VQuakr (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:43, 6 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) 01:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes Collection – Best Of Bugs Bunny[edit]

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

Non notable DVD compilation. Koala15 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's up, Doc? This faiiing WP:INDISCRIMINATE.-- danntm ^T _C 23:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. If it is needed a brief mention (with a WP:RS) of this Australian release could be added to the Looney Tunes Golden Collection article. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 9 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) 01:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Brownstein[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a lawyer and activist, written more like a prosified résumé than an encyclopedia article and making no strong claim of notability under our inclusion standards for lawyers or activists. The strongest things here are his serving on the boards of local chapters of organizations, and serving on the city council of a suburban municipality which is not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL #3. His sourceability doesn't even approach WP:GNG either — this is based almost entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, with the few reliable sources being deadlinks which namechecked his existence but weren't substantively about him even when live, and on a ProQuest search he garners just 15 hits, of which 14 are still just glancing namechecks and the only one that's substantively about him is covering him only in the context of his gratitude to a woman who saved his son from drowning in a swimming pool in 1995 (which does not constitute notability in and of itself.) Wikipedia's sourcing and notability standards are much stricter now than they were when this was closed "no consensus" in 2007 — nothing here grants him an exemption from having to be referenced to a lot more reliable source coverage than this, and genuinely solid RS coverage simply isn't out there to salvage it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No secondary sources, no professional awards or honours, no high-profile cases. WP is not a directory for lawyers. Delete Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Selwyn Floyd (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weirdly, I think my late mother may have worked for his late father, if he too practiced law. Anyhoo, that bit of oddness out of the way, Mr. Brownstein seems to be another case of an accomplished individual who simply doesn't (yet) meet our definition of WP:NBIO, even though he is clearly a respected figure in Montreal's Jewish and West Island community. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources other than the one brief mention in a news article that is already on the page. Fails WP:GNG as of now. Ajraddatz (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bazj (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Growth[edit]

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

No assertion or evidence of meeting WP:MUSBIO. CSD removed on the basis that the label is notable. Bazj (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazj: can you describe what steps you did per WP:BEFORE before creating this discussion? VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr, Tried every one of the "Find sources" links. Modified the search term to add "trance" since limited growth is swamped by economic gloom. No pertinent results found. Bazj (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It looks like their song No fate charted in Belgium, which would meet WP:BAND criterion #2. I don't have a lot of experience evaluating music charts, though. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr, Well found. Ultratop checks out as the "official" Belgian chart. WP:MUSBIO well & truly met. Would you care to add the claim & source to the article - I don't want to steal credit for your research. Regards, Bazj (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martynas Jasiūnas[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:NKICK. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability criteria for kickboxers or boxers. His boxing titles are all "youth" or "junior", so they fail to show notability. His success at IFMA events does not show notability because that is an amateur organization and amateur kickboxing is explicitly excluded from showing notability at WP:NKICK. Since he is now only 18, it's also not clear whether or not the titles he did win were adult or junior. Papaursa (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NKICK and WP:GNG since coverage appears to be routine sports reporting. Junior titles to not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Marku[edit]

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

Recreated after PROD for non-notability. Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:NKICK. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant independent coverage from reliable sources nor do I see anything that meets the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:NKICK. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and fails WP:NKICK. Mdtemp (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Electronic Gaming Monthly. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EGM April Fools' jokes[edit]

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

Article topic is not the subject of sourced commentary separate and distinct from EGM itself. The topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Restoring the redirect to Electronic Gaming Monthly is an option. czar 17:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per nom. Collection of trivia without in-depth coverage. -- ferret (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/ Merge - (Very selectively.) Some of them, like the "Sonic is Smash Bros Melee", received some attention, so it's probably worth an "April Fools" section in the EGM article, but not as a standalone article or in this level of detail, as most of them are relatively non-notable... Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Electronic Gaming Monthly per WP:PRESERVE. The main article has no mention of this information other than the See also link I just added. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and possible merge into Electronic Gaming Monthly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, selectively. It is something the EGM has been known for, and therefore is something the article on the magazine should mention, but it's not independently notable. That said, the main article doesn't need a list of all the jokes, either. So make the merge selective. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Electronic Gaming Monthly, although only a few of the more infamous examples are needed, such as Sonic in Smash Bros. Melee and Sheng Long. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And userfy if somebody wants to improve it. Sandstein 10:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Banu[edit]

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

The references listed provide no real evidence of notability. Some of them were co-written by the subject rather than referring to her. This autobiography reads promotionally rather than neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article subject is not notable, and obvious autobiographical tone. --Ches (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regrets Searched for actual notability in reliable sources, and was unable to succeed, but this does not mean she will not be notable in future. One Oxfam link credits "Marie Banu Jawahar" for a number of photos, but nothing actually of substance, alas. Collect (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I suggested the author to add further sources but I still question its notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space. This was a prematurely accepted AfC submission, originally posted at User:Mariebanu. I'm pretty sure it was written by one of the subject's colleagues editing under two accounts, not by her. See these edits by User:Mariebanu and User:Webmasterscsim, i.e. Webmasters CISM. In any case, who wrote it is not the issue. It's the evidence of notability and sufficient sourcing for a BLP that are lacking. The only remotely independent source that actually is about her rather than by her is the Chennai article about her receiving an award somehow related to Karmaveer Puraskaar which may be marginally notable, but they seem to hand out quite a few. The basis of the awards is explained here. I searched to see if there were any other potential sources and could find only self-written profiles, although there may something somewhere I've missed, hence the "draftify" rather than outright "delete". Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the nominator, I have no objection to having the article moved to draft space. That is probably better than trying to figure out whose user space to move it to, in view of the questions about misleading user names and sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space. Notability is not established. Serious issues with this article have been spotted by many editors, and there are issues that should be looked into. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This apparently isn't an autobiography. That is even worse than if it were one, because the principal author is using the name of a person whom he says he isn't. However, this deletion discussion should be based on notability, not on username or sockpuppetry issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was bad faith involved by the article's creator. A lot of new users don't understand the ins and outs of our username requirements and actually think they're doing the right thing by registering a username related to the article they're planning to write or an organisation to which they are affiliated. In any case, the creator is now editing as Webmasterssocial and I've cautioned them about not editing any further under the two old usernames. Voceditenore (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft space for further editing. Delete (after an appropriate length of time) if sourcing cannot be improved and notability cannot be established. Shearonink (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userify or draftify as has been handily argued above. I don't think a delete is appropriate at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space per all above.4meter4 (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making the page a draft and letting the editor attempt to improve it for a set amount of time could work, but as with a few others above, I've been unable to find any reliable sources covering the subject so it's unlikely the creator/users connected to the subject would be able to find anything. Elaenia (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Draftify. There might be sources out there which are unavailable on the internet, so no harm in letting an editor work on the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet or notability requirements, and moving it to draft space doesn't change that. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Thomas Malone[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

BLP article about an American author, poet, playwright, actor, and yogi with a bestseller in metaphysical fiction. Sourced with an interwiew on a free podcast provider and other social media sources. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:INDEPENDENT. Article was inserted as a draft also, the draft has been declined. Ben Ben ^(talk) 17:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben ^(talk) 17:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current sources used in the article do not establish notability of the subject. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - worth noting that the subject himself responded to this debate. https://www.facebook.com/ianthomasmalone/videos/1706546826232796/ As I have said, this article was created for a school project. The author has been on bestseller lists, has verified social media accounts, and is easily identifiable, more so than most of the "internet personalities" that have their own articles. Millions of people know the work of Ian Thomas Malone. Please keep this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galacticbinks42 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)— Galacticbinks42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. Please take the time and read WP:BASIC. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. I can't find any sources that are reliable, independent of the article subject (the sources listed in the article don't count), and cover the person in-depth and as the main topic. Also does not satisfy significant coverage, which is required for passing WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Author is a verified noted public figure. He is the author of 5 published novels. He was recently featured in a major east coast newspaper rhttp://www.greenwichtime.com/printpromotion/article/Local-author-24-finds-joy-in-the-printed-word-6872984.php I ask that wikipedia please keep this Article as Ian Thomas Malone is known to millions of fans throughout the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta2 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC) — Regatta2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. Please take the time and read WP:BASIC. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Author, Ian Thomas Malone is a young, noteworthy talent. He has a documented presence in the literary world as well as the world of social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikari221 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC) — Shikari221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. Please take the time and read WP:BASIC. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources of the author or his work to establish notability (WP:GNG/WP:NAUTHOR). — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It seems clear to me by reading the author's extensive bibliography as well as the references footnoted in this Article that Ian Thomas Malone is an accomplished literary figure of the millennial generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.79.227 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Malone is all over the Internet. A great young talent. Deleting this would be a disservice to the young author. I will not donate to Wikipedia again if this is how new noteworthy people are treated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.27.125 (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC) — 134.173.27.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I find it odd (and troubling) that not one of the Keeps has come from an experienced editor. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Respectfully, I find it troubling to see the disdain this article has received. This author has a massive following, has made bestseller lists, and has been written about extensively, though obviously not at the academic level. Which shouldn't be too surprising since he is quite young. He's accomplished much more than most of the people listed here as internet personalities and does so on many platforms. I've noticed that this article has been edited a bit. It seems to fall in line with the parameters of other articles about authors not named Ernest Hemingway or Stephen King. Why not keep it if it provides information on a relevant figure in today's society? Galacticbinks42 (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Stone[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Only 14 film credits to her name, mostly in small roles, once in a voice role on a TV episode. Doesn't meet threshold for notability, and we can't say it's because it is too soon. Quis separabit? 17:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Very close on WP:NACTOR, as she was the female lead in Hop-Along Cassidy, and the multi-year host of a show on the Mutual Radio Network (information I just found and added). --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has had prominent roles in eight films, including the lead in two. The references in the article are very good, with 12 articles by The New York Times, one by Nevada State Journal and one by Long Beach Press, they are offline- but that makes no difference in view of wikipedia's good faith guidelines. I think WP:BASIC is passed .Atlantic306 (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's just enought to pass Nactor. Could do with a bit of work, but definitely worth keepping. Cindlevet (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As a surname index. Sandstein 10:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gavan Duffy (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There is just one link that is not under see also. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename it to Gavan Duffy (surname), and turn it into a surname index. "Gavan Duffy" is a compound surname and it is used for a number of people. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After another look, it's complicated whether it's a compound surname or not (see comments below). Instead, I would rather prefer to move this page to Gavan Duffy and move Gavan Duffy to C. Gavan Duffy, where both pages were for several years before a move last month. That way we don't have have a discussion on whether it's officially a "disambiguation" or "surname," just have it at the base name and create a hybrid of sorts (a {{disambiguation|surname}}). -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean - could you explain what you mean by "Disambiguation|surname"? Do you mean we should replace the existing disambiguation page with a "you may also be looking for..." link at the top of C. Gavan Duffy's page? --Gimubrc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I got a little too technical with my explanation. I was suggesting reverting the pages moves that happened last month. Which means that Gavan Duffy moves to C. Gavan Duffy and Gavan Duffy (disambiguation) moves to Gavan Duffy. Second, to explain {{disambiguation|surname}}, it just means that it's a disambiguation page that also lists people with the surname. The template explains that it is a disambiguation page, but it is also listed in Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists. This is done when there aren't enough names to create a separate surname page, so the few people with the surname are simply listed at the disambiguation page like any other entry would (you can check the category for examples). In this case, it would qualify those with the surname to be "promoted" from the see also section, making it a 'valid' disambiguation. Does that make sense? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense - thanks for the explanation. I support your proposal: it makes sense to handle it that way. --Gimubrc (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it makes sense to keep as a surname article. I'm just not sure about the renaming: at the moment Gavan Duffy is about Charles Gavan Duffy and I don't see at first glance how that could be a primary topic. Uanfala (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Gavan Duffy is a "Charles Gavan Duffy" (1874-1958), not the Charles Gavan Duffy (1816-1903). The article asserts that he treated "Gavan" as his principal forename, but the only online source among the 3 refs lists him by his three names. So for him, if the sources verify this, "Gavan Duffy" was his whole name, while for the others it was reportedly a compound surname (though of the 4 articles, Frank and Louise's are written as if the surname was "Duffy".) PamD 10:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.charlesgavanduffysociety.com/, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/duffy-sir-charles-gavan-3450, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-Gavan-Duffy, and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05187a.htm which all seem to treat "Duffy" as surname, at least for Charles. PamD 10:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tavix's reasoning that we should keep but reconfigure as a surname index; there are apparently enough Gavan Duffies that keeping the page in some form has merit. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in the context of his political career, Charles Gavan Duffy (1874–1958) was usually referred to as "C. Gavan Duffy" or "Gavan Duffy". See [7], [8] (actually incorrectly listed as "Gavin"), [9], [10]. In his case, Duffy is definitely a surname; I cannot speak for Charles Gavan Duffy. There is however a "Gavan Duffy Park" in Ireland which seems to be named after Charles Gavan Duffy. I would also like to point out that I was not involved in the creation of this disambiguation page, only of a differently named redirect which morphed into a disambiguation page. It should also be noted that, over time, there appears to have been some differences of opinion about which entries should fall under "See also" for this page. However, if a surname type article were to be created, it would probably be appropriate to have a "See also" for Gavan Duffy. --Big_iron (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So Gavan Duffy isn't a composite surname then? It doesn't seem to be treated as such by all but one of the authority records at viaf.org. I don't know if authority files are reliable for stuff like that, does anyone know? 20:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs)
Comment Gavan Duffy is not a composite surname, it is middle name + surname. This makes it a partial match and so doesn't fit disambiguation guidelines. It is a case of whether we go for WP:IAR arguing that there is a clear benefit to readers from this. But is there? 86.133.142.73 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it currently seems to have content. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Having content is not relevant if the content is partial matches, which we are not meant to have on dabs. 86.133.142.73 (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hatnotes are sufficient to disambiguate Gavan Duffy and Gavin Duffy. All the others are unambiguous partial title matches. There is no indication that any of them are ever referred to as "Gavan Duffy". older ≠ wiser 21:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Connecticut Huskies women's basketball. Sandstein 09:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 1000 points[edit]

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

I am also nominating these related articles:

These should be deleted per WP:SALAT, which explains: "Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The 'list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana' will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list)." We're not quite in one-eyed horse thieves territory here, but these lists are so incredibly specific that they are of little value as a standalone list. An AFD for a similar article was recently closed as delete (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 250 steals). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - paging User:Joseph A. Spadaro, input desired... Blythwood (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that these should probably not be stand-alone articles. I'd hate, however, to see the information lost. And wonder if they can be incorporated into some other relevant article(s)? And, if not the entire list, perhaps the "top" five or ten results from the lists? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These articles are important statistics of one of the most highly regarded sports programs of our time. This is invaluable information and should not be ignored or lost merely because it is women's sports. This is UConn women's basketball, producing some of the greatest female athletes of our time and of all time. It is imperative these articles stand as a testament to their success and contributions to sports history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebyron12 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, these articles were not nominated for deletion because they were about a women's basketball team (rather than a men's basketball team). This has nothing to do with sex or gender. This nomination is based solely on the fact that these lists do not comply with relevant guidelines for standalone lists. WP:SALAT explains that "[t]he potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists." Indeed, lists that are this specific are of little value. That does not mean, however, that the information contained in the lists should be lost forever; as other editors have suggested, this information can be incorporated into other articles (e.g. the article for Connecticut Huskies women's basketball). Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that these lists do not comply with relevant guidelines and should continue to exist on a standalone basis. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone here think of some appropriate article into which these lists can be imported? So that they do not stand alone as a separate article? Within another (appropriate) article, they can be included as a "long list" that has that "toggle button" for "hide" and "show". No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: What about Connecticut Huskies women's basketball? That seems to be the natural choice in my mind. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine with me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content with Connecticut Huskies women's basketball. 1000 point scorers are highlighted by every school, it isn't an arbitrary cutoff. But I totally agree this doesn't need to be a stand-alone list. Many basketball program articles have career statistical leader lists contained in them. Rikster2 (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all 3 articles into Connecticut Huskies women's basketball, then delete so that they cannot be easily re-created by reverting the merge history. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if needed as this is questionably solid for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Connecticut Huskies women's basketball. Not enough for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Arnold (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but the WPHL doesn't seem to rise to what would be needed for NHOCKEY, and I don't see sources which would evidence notability under BASIC. joe decker ^talk 16:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Short hockey career, no coverage. Esquivalience ^t 00:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Doesn't come close to meeting WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shani Sanatan Dharma[edit]

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

Only hits I could find were for Sanātana Dharma/Sanatan Dharma, which is already part of the Hinduism article. This page was tangentially involved in an SPI ([11]), and this appears to be a non-notable derivative of some other religion, if it's not just a hoax (as I initially suspected). GAB^Hello! 16:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best, this is either a hoax that gets a ride from the name of a legitimate deity, or it's a new movement that has a long way to go before it becomes notable enough. At worst, it's a spammy article about a shameless business venture (a possibility that doesn't seem very remote given the titles of the books on sale from the apparently official website linked from the article: How to do Viral Marketing -The steps in making Business and Website Viral alongside Life Lessons from Jesus Reborn -A compilation of great articles by Jesus Reborn). Uanfala (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article is questionable and would need considerable improvements and I'm not seeing anything convincing to keep, best deleted and restarted when better. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like a scam to me. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:49, 9 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otaran[edit]

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

Non-notable original research created by SPA account with a clear COI JMHamo (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my previous speedy attempt and prod attempt: 'no discernible notability, nothing to de orphan it too, negligible content, and the two main editors have no user pages, and no contributions other than this article only since 2006 and 2010 respectively, and would both appear to have COI. I really did try to find something I could link to this from and some notability sources but no success. Eno Lirpa (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These name articles are somewhat like disambiguation pages in that we don't normally expect other articles to link to them. ~Kvng (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of openness I have put down all my reasons, but surely the main reason is notability - it seems to have none? And, if not linkable anywhere in regard to the primary content then also no encyclopedic relevance? Eno Lirpa (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Disambiguation pages and the like are not required to meet WP:GNG. Sure there's not much going on here, but it's a stub and should be kept per WP:TEARDOWN. ~Kvng (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't function like a disambiguation since there's no one on Wikipedia with the surname "Otaran" and as a surname article, it's completely unreferenced and unverifiable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now and restart when there's content available. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not a dab page (since it doesn't redirect the reader to any other Wikipedia pages), and completely unsourced. Searches show that there are folks with this name, but nothing about the name itself which makes it notable. If there were notable folks/places with this name, it could be the start of a dab page, but as of now, nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SGM Games[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I could go through each one of its sources one by one, but the citations in use are either (1) unreliable, (2) local (Cleveland, San Diego—not showing outside import), (3) primary (usu. the dev's own site). Altogether, their products are not the subject of significant coverage. And besides all this, the article as written has a promotional tone. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 15:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar 15:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been reviewed, promotional tone adjusted. References added, showing that games created by SGM Games are available for the public which can be found on the Android playstore and Apple Store as well. Please revisit. Daisybest (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usually it's WP:INHERIT that comes to mind with video game companies, in which case they've developed a notable video game. In this case, they haven't done so to begin with. Not a notable company. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has independent sources and should rather be reduced to a stub so more editors can work on it.Cleojason (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It already is a stub, but do the sources have the depth, reliability, and independence needed to write a full article? czar 15:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks independent, non-trivial resources. reddogsix (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourest Day[edit]

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

Insufficient support for notability. No reliable sources provided. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I thought it was a hoax since all except one of the refs returned 'not found' results. Turns out the refs were formatted wrong. I've corrected that and now all of the refs lead to solid results regarding this article's subject. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A man named Richard Ankli in Ann Arbor, Michigan has been promoting this "holiday" (and presumably himself) since at least 1988. He has succeeded in gaining many passing mentions in books and websites that list massive numbers of promotional and goofy holidays. This newspaper article shows how trivial it is. I have been unable to find any truly significant coverage, though, so this is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft and Userfy only if needed as this is still questionable for a solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brennan (businessman)[edit]

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

The article has plenty of references but most refer to Brennan only in passing. The article reads like a resume and I don't think it's worth keeping. Dismas|^(talk) 15:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability; promo/resume-style article. Quis separabit? 15:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this seems to have the classic behaviors of an article attempting to seem instantly acceptable but it's actually questionable with examination and there's nothing else convincing so delete is the best option. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TechSkills Academy[edit]

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

The article is semi-promotional as it is (see the "History" paragraph), and I can't find any independent, substantial coverage through searches. GAB^Hello! 15:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Only 65 Google hits, all of them affiliated, social media, directory listings, and/or junk pages. No indication of any significance. I think the article qualifies for A7 speedy deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this might come under the educational institute category, and is therefore not A7 eligible. Adam9007 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the biggest red flag is that the other headings are just lists of things, with nothing to say about any of them other than that they exist. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Runs just shy of the A7 G11 G12 of the previous version but does nothing to show notability. Bazj (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No outside coverage. I don't believe the subject is a legitimate educational institution, it's more of a commercial technology training program run by a company. Elaenia (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it isn't clear to me why a commercial technology training program run by a company can't be a legitimate educational institution, but that isn't an issue here anyway. Even if those were mutually exclusive classes of institutions, the article would survive if its topic were notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I brought it up in the context of the article being promotional in nature, which being commercial would probably have contributed. The website itself appears to be mostly an ad for the company instead of something along the lines of Coursera or Udacity. The domain itself was registered in August 2015 and is on a GoDaddy shared server which hosts nearly a million other websites, hardly the type of infrastructure for a well-known/established educational website. But yes, all of this is really just additional information to put the website in context and the issue of failing to establish notability would remain the biggest concern. Elaenia (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY (as the subject seems to be just as much a corporation as it is an "educational organization"). Without reliable sources which are non-affiliated with the company, there is no justification for TechSkills Academy having an article on Wikipedia. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karrie Hayward[edit]

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

Inadequately-sourced article about a musician. The only available sources merely mention her name. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 14:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better and none of this is currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These local blurbs are the best I could find; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow talk 09:42, 8 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) 04:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AstrologyPandit[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've gone through ~5 pages of search results to see if there's been any outside coverage of the subject, but I was unable to find a single article covering the website in-depth. The majority of results are websites which scrape domain registration information. No news articles found either. Elaenia (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better and none of this convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekanand Jha[edit]

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

Biography with originally a huge number of references, almost all to works by the subject himself (see this version). I performed a huge cleanup, removed promotional links to Amazon, and tagged a number of references that didn't check out. What is left are still mostly the works of the subject himself. The article claim some awards, but they are minor and even when searching on the websites of the awarding organizations, I cannot find any mention of them (one actually seems to be from a blog, the other only a third place). A Google search renders some mentions in blogs, but no book reviews or such. (Note that there is another person of the same name, a nephrologist -see here- who probably meets WP:ACADEMIC). The article lists several books published by the subject, but they are all published by minor publishers (perhaps vanity publishers, but their websites are not completely clear about this) and I cannot find any reviews. Subject's own website doesn't list any either. Jha is also editor of two literary magazines that were recently established, both now at AfD, too. I see no evidence that this meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Randykitty for creating debate. you have also tried to recommend this article for speedy deletion which was contested and review admin rejected the deletion. Not only that you are also raising question on the administrative and editorial quality of someone who had accepted this article more than one year back. There after nothing has changed into this article. But suddenly what happened in a week. Same day you have recommended my another article, Authorspress, created by me that too was rejected by another reviewer admin. I am stun that even on such a global platform one can harm someone's career and hard labor due to any personal irritation and grudge. You have certainly cleaned up the articles and further weakened it by reducing third party citations from 27 to 10. your are talking about all of the books published by a vanity publishers. You need to update your knowledge that all the publishers mentioned in this article are traditional and frontline publishers of India. Most of Vivekanand Jha's works and reviews on them are available in print journals which are known as confirmed citations and i had provided citations to those journals but you have removed most of them. I don't think it is fair from a person holding administrative power. i hope there must be many people above you who will look into it as they have been doing. Prinshukr (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please read WP:AGF. I am not using any administrative tools here, so the fact that I am an admin is absolutely immaterial. In my nom, I linked to the version that had all previous "references" and links, for everybody to inspect. --Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you have to start this debate to delete this article then why did you exhaust your mind in editing for hours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinshukr (talk • contribs) 16:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was such a mess that it was difficult to see what was significant and what not. After checking all references, I decided that it did not meet our inclusion guidelines and take it to AfD. This is part of WP:BEFORE (although usually BEFORE takes less time...) --Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any significant third-party coverage. The references cited in the article are either trivial mentions or affiliated with the author. I could find several mentions of "Vivekanand Jha" in Google Books, but these do not refer to the person being discussed here. Vivekanand is a very common Indian first name, and Jha is a very common surname as well. utcursch | talk 18:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added approx 15 third party citations of journals and books to further support this article. These citation doesn't include those which have been removed by review admin. Prinshukr (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I appreciate your efforts, I am afraid that you misunderstand what we mean with "sourcing" here. Nobody contests that Jha has published poems and other work. The "references" that you added are all references to works by Jha. None of them discuss Jha himself or his works. This was also the case with any "reference" that I removed (and which can still be seen in this version. What is needed are references that are independent of Jha (i.e., written by others in publications not edited by him) and that discuss him or his work in depth (see WP:RS, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG). As for your remark about "review admin", I am acting here as a WP editor, not as an admin. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your comment. you are again wrong at one point, none of the more than 15 citations that i have added today is being edited and authored by Mr Jha on whom this article is based. They are all third party citations of journals and anthologies edited and authored by someone else editors and authors. Those journals and anthologies published his pieces after selecting and reviewing them from number of submissions. These are review and criticism in itself. on your one point i can agree to some extent that it may need some citations which may be criticism and reviews on his creative works. That can be done, not a big thing. Such reviews and articles of him are available in the print version of books and journals that will be added soon after verification. Thanks again.Prinshukr (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:ACADEMIC. Academics are judged by their publications that on top of any editorial selection are peer-reviewed by usually several peers. Yet, no academic is judged notable just because they have published a number of papers. What counts is whether anybody noted those papers by citing them in their own work or including them in a literature review. For authors, what we use are book reviews in reputable sources (so reviews on Amazon or someone's blog don't count). Just publishing something does not make an author notable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again. I agree with this points. I will do it but need some time to collect data from offline sources. i hope i will get co-operation from you.Prinshukr (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete With respect to WP:PROF, editing a very widely used anthology can meet the requirements, but the subject's "The Dance of the Peacock: An Anthology of English Poetry from India" is held in only 11 WorldCat libraries. That doesn't show it might not be important in India (India has no union catalog or other way of finding this sort of information) , but it does show it isn't important elsewhere. The other books listed for him in WorldCat are similar--the most widely held is The novels of Amitav Ghosh : an analytical appraisal in 17 libraries. WP:PROF is normally interpreted on an international scale, but inn the humanities, there can be considerable national interest in work that is on national subjects, and this can be notable also. I don't really see any way of telling this--there is not only no citation indexes for India, but index of any sort to publications from India in the field of humanities.

However, possibly it might meet WP:AUTHOR. For authors of poetry (as for short stories) publication of their works as complete books is not essential, and publication in multiple major anthologies has usually been accepted here. The ones currently listed as publishing his work do not impress me as likely to be major anthologies.

Of course, this is part of a campaign for self-advertising, and could probably be deleted as such. The contributor does not seem to realize that the purpose of WP is not to help anyone's career--doing that would be promotional, and WP is not a medium for promotion. The purpose of WP is to have information that ordinary readers who might have encountered the subject might want to know. If the person has been covered by major reviews or appears in major anthologies or is a best-seller in a documented way, people might reasonable come to an encyclopedia to find information. If the work is less well-known than that, they are not likely to come, and an article is inappropriate. (And that's the point of the notability guidelines). DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks DGG. collecting third party citations for review and criticism by other authors and editors, to be included soon.Prinshukr (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "awards" appear to be from non-notable blogs and there aren't any results which would support the argument the poet in question is notable. Elaenia (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No obvious independent reliable sources that are deeper than passing mentions or directory-type listings. The original author is a single-purpose account. A detailed inspection of their editing history suggests they have a promotional agenda at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia. Worldbruce (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment:-

Thanks to all editors who have participated so far in this debate. The article under discussion was accepted for publication on 06 Jan 2015. Since then and till 04 Mar 16, not a single question is raised against this article. On 04 Mar 16 one editor recommend it to speedy deletion as he was not happy and contended with my other three articles Authorspress, Phenomenal Literature & VerbalArt. I contested this speedy deletion and one admin declined its speedy deletion. Again same editor who recommended its speedy deletion, mobilize AfD. My question is that if this article was so much full of flaw and fallacies why anyone could not pay attention for one and more than year. Is article accepted for publication without any scrutiny? Is the speedy deletion is declined without any reason and investigation? Still I have tried utmost to address the grievances raised by the nominating and other editors.

Now coming to our next article Authorspress, same editor recommended this article for speedy deletion and on contesting the deletion, the speedy deletion declined by another admin/editor. Now who declined its speedy deletion and has now started AfD against this article. Don’t you think all these make the things something contraries? I appreciate this debate because it teaches many things to a new editor but what I observed is that if such debate is started on every article of Wikipedia, half of total articles created even by experience editors need to be deleted. It seems that we are peeling a piece of hair. I agree that I have written four articles of which three are co-related and one on different theme. I also agree that my two articles VerbalArt & Phenomenal Literature should not have been written but written in passion as a new editor. These also have a scope and can be merged with the article, Vivekanand Jha.

But I still strongly believe that articles Vivekanand Jha & Authorspress deserve to be on Wikipedia and this I am telling after going through a host of article available on authors and publishing houses on Wikipedia. While writing so many things I do understand the purpose of Wikipedia and every day and moment I turn for it to clear a cloud of any doubts. I do understand that it is not a platform for cataloging, promotion and advertising, like social networking sites and it needs a lot of patience, knowledge and hard work to remain riveted here.

I got some co-operation too. But, so far, especially in a month, more than getting co-operation from experienced editors, I am sorry to say, I suffered a bite, witch hunt, aggression and vandalism which is also against the policy of Wikipedia. If we need to observe all other policies of Wikipedia we need to follow this policy as well. Sorry for trespassing! Prinshukr (talk) 03:50, 10 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) 04:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kendriya Vidyalaya alumni associations[edit]

Completely pointless. Alumni associations are not notable. Plus, most of the schools mentioned here do not have articles, let alone the possibility of there being an article for their alumni association. As it stands, this list merely provides a nearly unverifiable list of schools supposedly having a alumni associations. Not useful or helpful. 103.6.159.65 (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 12:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 12:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as a topic. utcursch | talk 17:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 01:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2016 Moscow beheading, per WP:BOLD. Target article also is also at AfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gyulchehra Bobokulova[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. A single atrocious act does not necessarily make a person notable. Specifically, according to WP:PERP: "The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities, [or] the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." This event got lots of coverage because it was so shocking, but I do not believe anyone would call the perpetrator renowned, or the act historical (in any case, it's too soon for the latter). ubiquity (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article redirected to 2016 Moscow beheading, which also has an Afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Moscow beheading. I am moving my argument there. ubiquity (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Liu[edit]

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

Businesswoman who doesn't appear to me to be sufficiently notable for inclusion. It seems that her husband Phua Kok Khoo is the main driver behind the couple's business activities. The creator seems to have created a lot of articles pertaining to University of Birmingham people, most of which seem to make the grade of notability, but this one i'm not convinced about. Seems more like padding. Uhooep (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like I said in the last AfD, she is the director and cofounder of World Scientific Publishing, which is one of the largest publishing groups in Asia. If the sources say she is the cofounder, then we have to agree that she the "cofounder," which doesn't mean automatically that her husband is the main driver behind the business! Please show me sources that say Phua is the main driver so I can understand where you're coming from, Uhooep. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep What does "It seems to me?" have to do with anything? Disparaging the creator, ignoring that you are required to AGF the creation intent was genuine, calls into question why the file was even nominated. Clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't done by nominator. "She" is listed as a co-founder, i.e. equally important as any other founder. [12]. "She" is solely listed as the managing director, (not a co-manager) and "she" is solely listed as the Woman Entrepreneur of The Year 2010. [13] Her husband is the "chairman and editor-in-chief" and she is the managing director and chief financial officer. [14] "She takes care of the company finances, administration and production schedules." Clearly she is a driving force in the business. Opinions don't matter, documentation does. SusunW (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Megalibrarygirl and SusunW. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chua Chwee Koh[edit]

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

Brigadier-Generals are ranked below Major generals and Lieutenant generals in the Singapore Armed Forces. The creator seems to have created a lot of articles pertaining to University of Birmingham people, most of which seem to make the grade of notability, but this one i'm not convinced about. Seems more like padding. Uhooep (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Brigadier-Generals are ranked below Major generals and Lieutenant generals" in all armed forces that have them! However, they are still general officers and thus clearly still meet the provisions of WP:SOLDIER, which does not specify which grades of general are or are not notable. We also hold that brigadiers (without the general bit) are notable and have done so at many AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tollywood Talkies[edit]

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

Contested prod - does not meet the general notability guideline. sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 10:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, All of it's content is entirely promotional, which is not surprising given that it was created by a user named Subratostar, and that the article itself lists an individual by the name of Subrato Das as "Handling Social Media Promotional Page". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpdwkouaa (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability, fails WP:GNG. Same editor has created another WP:BLP page Subrato Das which I've nominated for CSD A7 some time back. Vipinhari || talk 19:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly too soon, barely anything here for minimal notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given its current state and likely inability to establish notability in the future. Elaenia (talk) 05:51, 9 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. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Angel (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker/actor/musician. Natg 19 (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better and none of this convinces WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more notable as an up and coming director, writer and producer than as an actor, passes notability guidelines Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here notability wise yet. Looks like it is a case of being WP:TOOSOON.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindlevet (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. There's this review from PopMatters that critiques his work, but that's pretty much the only thing I could find. Nothing at Fangoria, Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, Ain't It Cool News, Twitch Film, or any of the other genre film websites I usually check. I agree that it's too soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:17, 8 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research exchange ltd[edit]

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

Nothing here that I can see gives any sense of notability. One ref is unavailable, another behind a paywall, but those that are both visible and relevant appear to be press releases or of tangential relevance. Nothing here convinces me of motability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles behind paywalls removed. Inserted reference to trade bodies and industry bodies discussing impact of research unbundling and movement of investment research from free to paid for on research exchanges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.185.87 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero hits in news. Established 2014 per Companies House. Seems to be a startup that's not yet notable. Fails WP:CORP. John Nagle (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Operates under the trading name RSRCHX and RSRCHXchange. Over 35 mentions in google news search for RSRCHXchange [[15]]. And 7 articles for RSRCHX [[16]]. Perhaps rename page to RSRCHXchange trading name rather than UK registered company name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.201.255 (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment refs to articles behind paywalls should not be removed, should be reinstated per assumption of good faith, just because an article is not easy to access does not mean it should be discounted.Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing convincingly better, still questionable for better applicably notable improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing but WP:ROUTINE coverage and press releases. Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jo and the boy[edit]

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

An unremarkable film. 333 -blue 07:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a commercial Malayalam movie that was released in theaters. Biwom (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, we have refs from the Times of India, multiple articles. A commercial release. Awards. Not a very persuasive deletion rationale, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, it was in very different shape when nominated, as noted below. Still, WP:BEFORE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - page was in a bad shape when nominated. Now reliable sources are added. This is a state government award winning Malayalam movie. Vipinhari || talk 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obviously the article needed some work when nominated for deletion. But WP:BEFORE is relevant here. In addition, the rationale for deletion is not policy-based. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Docker's Guild[edit]

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

I closed the firs tAfD as a technical non-consensus because of the over-personal nature of the discussion which in my opinion was making it too difficult to deal with the question in an objective policy-based manner. (I have no personal opinion on the question-it's not a field where I have any particular understanding) .

The original deletion reason given by NinjaRobotPirate was This is a musical project that's sourced almost entirely to official websites. There does not seem to be enough third-party coverage to warrant an article

That's a valid reason for a AfD nomination, and discussing whether that is correct would be the way to proceed. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Taking a look at the references used in this article [17] it is clear to me that this article should be deleted. There is also a problem with the main article which has over 10 reference points going to his Facebook page. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I mentioned at the first AfD, none of this suggests minimal solid independent notability and is at best redirected to Douglas R. Docker's article. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like I said in the previous nomination, there isn't enough third-party coverage to pass WP:NMUSIC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NMUSIC. Doesn't appear to meet the requirements to satisfy NMUSIC. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a stand-alone article. The independent coverage in English is virtually zero. Once the descriptions of the publicity campaigns for the project and the description of the project itself (sourced entirely to Docker's websites) are removed, there is virtually nothing left. I then checked Italian websites, since Docker is based there. I found two interviews with him publicising the project on Italian heavy metal websites, this on metalhammer.it and this on heavymetalwebzine.it, plus this review of the very first album in the series on italiadimetallo.it. Obviously this is a very niche area and I have no idea whether these are significant websites. Even so, the publicity interviews on heavymetalwebzine.it and metalhammer.it are hardly independent sources and simply part of the publicity campaign. The brief description of the project already in Douglas R. Docker is more than sufficient, although as Somedifferentstuff points out, that article too is very problematic. Willing to change my mind if someone can find truly independent, in-depth coverage of this project in reliable sources—in any language. I've had no luck so far. Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article has long been problematic and problematically edited. I think the article would look more notable if it wasn't written in such a promotional way. Merge it into Douglas R. Docker and do lots of clean-up and I think you could get one good article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the promotional content in Docker's Guild were edited out, i.e. virtually the entire article, the subject has to be notable, not simply look notable. That can't happen without evidence that independent sources have taken sufficient notice of it to write about it in depth. There is already some material about this project in Douglas R. Docker. Without independent sourcing, I'm not sure how much of anything in the article under discussion could be usable in that article apart from a bare-bones description of their latest release possibly sourced from this review on getreadytorock.me.uk, although I'm not sure how notable that site is. Its contributors seem more like knowledgeable amateurs. Does anyone know if either of the two Docker's Guild albums to date have charted? I rather doubt it. If they had, there would be more written about them rather than by them. Rather than merge, which necessitates keeping all the drivel of the current article in the history of the redirect, why not simply delete this one, rewrite and improve Douglas R. Docker in situ with new references, then create a re-direct. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) To be fair, I think Bondegezou was suggesting that if the article was stripped of its promotionalism, its notablity be would be immediately apparent.11:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2016 March 6 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that's what he/she was saying, more or less. But notability is only apparent when it can be shown that multiple independent sources have taken notice of the subject. It does not become apparent simply by an improved writing style. In fact, a clearer, neutral writing style often makes the non-notability of the subject even more apparent.Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMUSIC. Project clearly has not received coverage to be considered notable in any way. 161.113.20.135 (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to show any coverage and/or notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails to meet any WP standards for notability in music; page appears to be pure self-promotion and sourced purely by artist's own website. 71.185.45.31 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SwisterTwister. Too little third party coverage. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close as per SNOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per nomination, and the entirety of reasons listed above. And to the point above, no the albums have not charted. They aren't a blip on anyone's radar. 161.113.11.16 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to reasons listed above and per WP:NMUSIC, still unknown why artist is in blackface on page. Needlessly provocative. 66.87.83.157 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ellis[edit]

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

BLP with no references. A Google search returned plenty of social media chatter, but no reliable, third-party published sources. The custom WikiProject Video Games Google searches (of both reliable and situational sources) returned zero results. Woodroar (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Woodroar (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of reliable sources that would establish notability. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a popular YouTube channel does not make the subject automatically notable. WP:ITSPOPULAR is not a reason. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur ap Gwynn[edit]

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

The article is about his career as a librarian like every librarian of the world. Can't see anything about his notability.

The user randomly creates article using the same source of Dictionary of Welsh biography. Some of the articles look notable, some doesn't. --Captain Spark (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- entries in Dictionary of Welsh Biography are notable: the 4,400 most notable people to have lived in Wales, each with a professionally written biography. Papers have been collected and catalogued by an archive. Particularly in earlier periods, the head librarian of a major university was equivalent to a major professor in a department. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Welsh Biography will be biased towards people from Welsh. The article must explain why he is notable other than being a plain librarian. Captain Spark (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michael and WP:ANYBIO's second criteria, for historically notable figures. And I do see via Google search that his papers have been archived by Aberystwyth University. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Rangshahi[edit]

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

Actor of an unreleased film http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7964860/?ref_=tt_cl_t5 Captain Spark (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER and I patrolled this at NPP so I also planned to nominate for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only one upcoming role, its a case of it being too soon for an article Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Asia School of Theology[edit]

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

This looks a bit like an advertisement. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When comparing to other seminaries located in the same country of Singapore, East Asia School of Theology entry appears to be more comprehensive but scope of content appears to be similar to others and therefore do not qualify as an advertisement per se: Trinity Theological College, Singapore, Singapore Bible College, TCA College (Singapore), etc. Jemyao (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemyao (talk • contribs) 03:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Jemyao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: certainly notable as an accredited seminary, and the article is not entirely promotional - there are references to independent sources. St Anselm (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is offering degree level courses. I do not see it as an ADVERT, and even if it was, we would need an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to find enough significant coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 18:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Rhodes[edit]

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

Questionable notability-also possibly a SPA going on here (pages like this person have been created before by the name gabby but the user here has a different name that does not come close) Wgolf (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Barbie: Life in the Dreamhouse and Monster High are notable shows, and the former looks pretty fun to watch, but the notability of the voice actress is very questionable, as stated by the nominator. editorEهեইдအ😎 03:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not particularly notable person from what I can see. This user has created a bunch of bad articles and this is no exception.*Treker (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O Mahi[edit]

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

This song is not notable along with other articles created by the user, Invisible Love, Lewavesi Production, DJ Ritendra, Category:Songs written by DJ Ritendra, Template:DJ Ritendra singles, Template:DJ Ritendra, Abyss of Me, As I Am (DJ Ritendra song), Tonight (DJ Ritendra song), Ballin (DJ Ritendra song), Category:DJ Ritendra songs, Category:DJ Ritendra albums, Now That You're Gone (DJ Ritendra album)

All these articles are created through non-RS sources. The user has created many articles, categories and templates related to DJ Ritendra. There are other articles unrelated to this DJ Ritendra that I haven't checked. Captain Spark (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had entered three categories by the same user which are not visible, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:DJ_Ritendra_songs , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:DJ_Ritendra_albums , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Songs_written_by_DJ_Ritendra Captain Spark (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and others mentioned above. None of these songs meet the WP:NSONGS criteria. utcursch | talk 18:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources have been properly referenced. Definitely passes WP:GNG. Krishfiji (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not even one of those sources can be considered reliable. That also goes for the other articles created you've created about this DJ. utcursch | talk 16:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 7thspace.com article is a press-release.
- youngbiztimes.com is a random blog
- digitaljournal.com article is a press-release
- fijitimes.com is a trivial mention, and doesn't mention the song at all
- thejetnewspaper.com is a random blog
utcursch | talk 16:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of obvious notability and coverage in WP:RS - but WP:USUAL applies as well. If the song charts, then an article would be appropriate. For now, redirect to the artist's article. Also, an aside - if the nominator intended to add the other named songs and albums to this nomination, then it didn't take - none of them are tagged. You'll want to have a look at WP:MULTIAFD for instructions on how to nominate those articles. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The artist himself may not be notable. The same user is creating all his templates, categories and albums, song. Captain Spark (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then yeah, it would seem that a group nomination will clean up everything else. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Article creator (and sole keep !voter above) moved the article to Oh Mahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and removed AfD tag. --Finngall ^talk 16:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now and restart when better is available, draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in independent reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Hellwig and His Banjo Band[edit]

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

Only ref provided simply names the band on a list, and that's absolutely it. Insufficient coverage to warrant an article. GAB^Hello! 02:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would love to keep an article about a banjo band from the early 20th century, but all I could find is that the University of Texas -Austin holds a few documents in their archives that mention this band, but nothing more. That's nowhere near enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft and Userfy if needed as my searches found nothing than the 1 URL. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italians[edit]

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

the talk page includes arguments.

1) Wikipedia should have a character limit for an article. This article has no character limit. It is and will become a sprawling mess. Tell me what established non-POV criteria determine who is in and who is out of this list. Nobody can give me a succint description. They claim the list is only for notable Italians, not all Italians on Wikipedia. Who decides who is notable? We cannot agree on the content.
2) Should the article subdivide the list by geography, epoch, or line of work/notability? I vote that we will never agree. We cannot agree on the format.
3) All the contents of this article is accessible by categories. Why even have the list. The article is superfluous.
4) I would not object to an article that has links to articles such as those found in Category:Lists of Italian people. That however again begs the question, why not leave this up to categories. Even such an article, would be superflouous.

I call this article a monstruosity that cannot be killed because most of the objections to my suggestion that it should be deleted are that: there are other articles like this; that is, The way things are is the way things are. Wikipedia as a community beckons all of us to be bold in editing. We must be equally bold in suppressing chatter, and endless sprawling lists like this article. Delenda est.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience to the reader, Keep, but remove all the names on this page and leave the job to list them to their subsequent profession lists, given that the page is way, way too lengthy if we don't do this. But I guess everybody's gotta make a WP:BOLD move once in a while. editorEهեইдအ😎 03:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the foremost criteria for having a Wikipedia article is being notable. If something is not notable, they should not have a Wikipedia page, which is why when useres add red linked names to these lists, they are often removed. The page "List of Italians" or the page "List of Canadians" or the page "List of Australians" or the page "List of Americans" etc etc is technically an article about all the people that fit the description of being Italian (for example) or having strong connections to that country. However, in pages like these, I can assure you not all Italians are listed in the article as some are "less notable" than others. Do they not deserve to be in the article? Of course not. But it takes time to add every person that these lists are often incomplete, and even so, very, very long. The articles on List of Australians and List of Americans for example have an interesting twist to condensing the article, through listing other specific lists that the reader is pointed to. Can the article undergo some improvement? Yes, but deleting the whole thing is simply not the action that should be taken here (more of the easy or lazy way out). For an article like this to be deleted, all the nationality articles must be deleted too (which I am not saying we should do). The point is, we can't just have all the other nationalities minus the Italians for consistency purposes. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There have already been extensive discussions on the article's talk page. Yes, there are improvements to be made, but deleting a list article based on a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument is not a valid reason. In fact, if one goes through the article's history, it's had very few additions for years, so the likelihood of its suddenly 'exploding' into a WP:OTHERSTUFF piece is superficial conjecture. In truth, all of the policy and guideline arguments for keeping it have already been brought up there. 'Starting again' is not an answer because it's not going to make it clearer as to how to break it down into sections, and I can't see anything particularly rational about the submitting editor's !vote and 'crystal-balling' over, "Should the article subdivide the list by geography, epoch, or line of work/notability? I vote that we will never agree. We cannot agree on the format." when there's never actually been any discussion of this nature on this article. Yes, a better structure needs to be put in place, but no one has started a discussion as to what and how at any point. The main point is that it doesn't all have to be done right now because one editor is irritated by it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the characterization of my proposal to delete this list as WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. It is an objection based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY specifically WP:NOTWHITE. That is Wikipedia articles are not:

1.Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as ... persons. Please address this problem and do not create a straw man argument.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not in its present "monstruous" state. Suggest making this a List of lists of people from Italy, and subdividing that in two sections, by profession and by region (including historical regions and states). Many of the profession lists already exist, and it would be the work of moments to create the others by splitting content from here; lists by region could easily be created from categories such as People from the Kingdom of Sardinia. A navbox to move between those lists would also be helpful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is this a joke? Italians are a significant group. Use RFC to enlarge Talk page participation if that is the issue. Should be Speedy Keep really. do ncr am 13:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though this page (like other pages about list of people by nationality) needs some improvements it doesn't necessarily need to be deleted. Probably a limited number of people and then add Main article and/or See also would be better. And btw, creating a List of people from Italy is not the same as List of italians.--MarcusVetus ✠ 14:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusVetus (talk • contribs)

Please people: No one is saying Italians are not important. The problem is this rambling, sprawling list is not useful, and has limits too broad today. Again, focus: tell me: how do we know at any one moment if we have nearly complete coverage of the topic? When the list has 10 thousand Italians? 100 thousand Italians? Tell me: am I wrong if I add nearly 4-5000 Italian painters with entries in Wikipedia? Nearly 1000 Italian sculptors? A thousand Roman Catholic cardinals? 4269 Italian footballers? Etc. All these are notable enough to have a category in Wikipedia, are they notable to be on this list? If the list is not substantially modified, I voted deletion, and still do. Delenda est. Some suggest modification, well go to it! Rococo1700 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not that those painters, sculptors, etc aren't notable; it's that there are just too many to add and users don't want to go through all that time so they just add the "most famous" ones. Again, this is why these lists are often incomplete. Why are all your 5000 painters not in List of Italian painters? It's because it would take much too long! These lists aren't here to cover every single Italian, they are here to cover a wide variety of the "most popular" people in each category. It doesn't mean that they all don't deserve to be in the list, it just means that it would be much to long to encompass everyone. This is why it is a Wiki. You start off with the most popular of them, then as time goes on, more and more are added. There cannot be a limit as to how many people are allowed in a list... It just wouldn't work, and a consensus on such a thing would be nearly impossible. Again, maybe we should take away the names and put the various lists: such as List of Italian chefs, List of Italian actors, List of Italian scientists etc etc. But again, not ever Italian chef, not every Italian scientist etc etc will be in that list, just like not every painter is in that list! It really is a never ending battle, but that is why it is a Wiki. Collaboration. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked 10 categories in Category:Lists of people by nationality, and every single one had a main list, just like this one. Just doesn't make sense to start by arbitrarily deleting one country's main list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT - "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". There are probably over 30,000 potential entries for this list, even if someone tried to limit to a subjective "more notable". No way this short list is anything but OR or POV. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments of "there are similar lists" do not hold water. Now if someone wants to do the donkey work of organizing 30,000 articles into a "list of lists" I'll change my vote. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vaselineeeeee, the 5000 painters are not in the list of painters because I have not added them there. I place them in categories, for example, 17th-century Italian painters, Italian Baroque painters, Venetian painters, Italian landscape painters, thus I accommodate each by time, place and manner. The 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries each have about a thousand entries (some entries span two centuries); my estimate if that if we reach 2000 entries, we will have to either provide some alphabetical links or subdivide the century into two halves. In my view, the list of painters is a POV entry. To be complete, it should replicate the sum of all the categories of Italian painters by century. Then again, this would mainly perpetuate another sprawling lists. Let us first focus on deleting this list, then moving on to others. However, a list of Italian painters is likely not going to be 100 thousand. The Commanducci source is the most comprehensive registry of Italian painters and has 100 thousand entries. Many of these are just names with vague dates, and almost no biographical data, and perhaps no identified independent works hence have little role in Wikipedia. I am trying to populate Wikipedia with artists known from museums or major collections or major anthologies. It is getting more difficult. I suspect for example, we have nearly 60-70% of the Baroque artists in Artists in biographies by Giovanni Baglione. Thus these parameters, more than Baglione, Soprani, etc and less than Commanducci, grant us the ability to make a fairly comprehensive list of Baroque painters that will receive entries in Wikipedia. The problem with the list at hand is you cannot give me a reasonable number for its content, nor clear criteria.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In general, I think WP:SALAT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE caution against the creation of lists like this, but I also think that we should let the discussion on the article's talk page develop further to see if there is any way this list can be shortened or if stricter selection criteria can be found (per WP:LSC). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a bit late for cautioning against such lists. For those editors who don't work on ethnic group articles, these lists of 'notables' (and they are proscribed by notability, plus are not WP:OR where there is bio evidence of their ethnicity) are attached to virtually every ethnic group listed in Wikipedia. Beyond that, they are attached to nearly every diasporic ethnic group in every country of on this planet: from Greek Australians, to Anglo-Indians, to Chinese Indonesians. There are literally hundreds of these lists, so if you intend to delete one on the grounds of SALAT and INDISCRIMINATE, I suggest that you'd better find a larger venue that involves WP:ETHNIC and other involved editors before making a call of deleting one. A single article is not the venue for discussing this issue, much less making cavalier decisions about areas of Wikipedia you're not involved in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I couldn't agree more with the statement directly above me. This is not the proper venue to be discussing this situation. A bigger venue with other involved editors, as said above, should be considered. Having this discussion for one article of hundreds to do with ethnic groups is futile. There is a fine line between WP:OTHERSTUFF and the situation Iryna and I have been discussing. As said above, there are hundreds and thousands of the list articles from virtually every country and ethnic group, that if one of them wanted to be deleted it should be taken up at a larger venue and discussed before bringing to deletion since it would most likely bring about other concerns as well and be a help for the project. That being said, it would be better to have a discussion there on how to IMPROVE lists like these, instead of wanting to delete the article based on JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Rococo, you can't ask us to give you how many bytes or how many entries are allowed to be in the article because we would just be making up a number out of thin air! Who are a few people to say what the page length be? This is why a larger venue is need to discuss this matter. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Wikipedia pages have a byte limit per se? If everything in the article is need to be said and is properly referenced, why does it deserve not to be there? I think making a byte limit or something of the sort will only cause problems down the road between edit wars of deciding what gets to be in the byte limit or not. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the arguments above. again justdontlikeit is your complaint, not mine. Both Vaselineee want things to stay as they are because that is how they are. The way they are is wrong. Let it start here. If there is no byte limit then let it rip, lets make this a list of 100 thousand Italians, since both Iryna Harpy and Vaselinee fail to set non-biased descriptions of what this article is about. Rococo1700 (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Rococo1700, you have focussed on a single list article that personally offends you. If you have a case for deleting such articles, full stop, try setting up an RfC with arguments for their deletion across the board. I'm neither for nor against them, but I'm for parity across Wikipedia: that's what being WP:HERE means. Personal attacks on other editors who don't agree with you is unacceptable behaviour. Instead of engaging in WP:PRAM behaviour, your energies would be better used for presenting a case for the removal of all such 'ethnic group' notables lists. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let it start here. If we can agree that it should for this, the recommendation will spread to all. I am not offended by the article, but as I have said, again and again. Please define what the parameters for this list are: should it include all thousand Italian cardinals? all 5000 Italian painters? You keep dropping WP tags, but do not address the salient point. What personal attack? Give me a break. The discussion is now in the section of Articles for deletion. Different editors have given you reasons why

the article should be deleted. Now rather than acting the victim of attacks, then focus on the questions related to the article. How do you stop this article from becoming a list with one hundred thousand names?

If no one fixes that problem, then maybe the answer is to make it a list of a hundred thousand names, all of them Italians with entries in Wikipedia. I just want to make sure we are all in agreement (or not).Rococo1700 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly do find them problematic, and proscribing them would be OR unless you have RS describing person Y as being less notable than person X... but I don't think this is best approached by deleting one article in the hopes that other ethnic group lists will follow suit. I'm more than happy to discuss this, and approaches to putting this to the community, on your talk page. I'm flat out today, but will get back to you ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lisa Unger. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ink and Bone[edit]

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

Not notable. Captain Spark (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lisa Unger for now. The book may become notable by the time of its June 2016 release, but it is clearly way WP:TOOSOON to have a stand-alone article on the book right now. editorEهեইдအ😎 03:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, per above. Artw (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The "delete" opinions were mainly based on the undue prominence given to the criminal case, and since the rewrite or expansion no new "delete" opinion has been submitted. Nobody apart from the nom seems to question his notability as an academic. Sandstein 09:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Lee Williams[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E of a person who has been charged with but not yet convicted of a crime, which skews decidedly in the direction of being a wanted poster rather than an encyclopedia article. Due to some page-blanking issues I listed the article for BLP review at WP:BLP/N#Walter Lee Williams, where the reviewer's assessment was that it wasn't consistent with BLP policy because the notability is hinged entirely on the criminal allegation. Claims of preexisting prominence as a queer studies academic aren't properly supported by any sources which are covering him in that context, but are referenced entirely to assertions of his academic prominence in coverage of the criminal allegation. Per WP:PERP, we have a duty to be extremely careful, to the point of "not at all" in the vast majority of cases, about BLPs where an as yet untried and unconvicted criminal allegation is the primary notability hook. I get that his having been listed as one of the FBI's ten most wanted fugitives in 2013 might, in theory, be the top notability claim for some people — but (a) he was captured the very next day and is still in detention, so there's no real argument for keeping this article on "public service" grounds now, and (b) while we do have articles about some other criminals who have been added to that list, we're far from having articles about all (or even most) of them. So for all of those reasons, this should be deleted — no prejudice against potential recreation if and when he's ever actually convicted of something. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Mr. Williams is blessed (or cursed) with a common name, which unfortunately means that Googling for "Walter Williams" will bring up two dozen unrelated people in addition to him; and his works are rarely credited to "Walter Lee Williams", they are usually "Walter Williams" or, at best, "Walter L. Williams". But this particular Walter Williams happens to have been a renowned anthropologist and historian before his arrest, even though our current article only brushes on this. I looked around, and his works are used as the references for oodles of Wikipedia articles, on Homosexuality and Native American history. I'm going through and linking them in now, and might come back and give a list here, it's impressive. The article needs to be rewritten to focus on his work, rather than his arrest, and, as the nominator mentions, should not give undue weight to the arrest ~~until any conviction,~~ but we need an article on this person, and it's, unfortunately, a sign of our Wikipedia:Systemic bias that we didn't have one until he got arrested. --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the ones that I could find in a few minutes. There might be others.
- Five Civilized Tribes
- Third gender
- Stonewall Book Award - this particular one bears attention; about 90% of the winners of this award, as he is, have articles
- Gender dysphoria in children
- History of Oklahoma
- Women in warfare (1500-1699)
- Osh-Tisch
- God as the devil
- LGBT and religion topics
- Two-Spirit
- LGBT in Mexico
- Crow Nation
- LGBT history
- W. Dorr Legg
- Non-penetrative sex
- Toby Johnson
- Richard Cornish (shipmaster)
- Stonewall riots
- Barbara Gittings
- Yolanda Retter
--GRuban (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for what it's worth, he has been convicted and sentenced. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-usc-professor-child-sex-crimes-20141215-story.html --GRuban (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if anyone wonders what his article should look like without the focus on the arrest - look at his article on the Russian Wikipedia. Yes, he has an article on the Russian Wikipedia. Yes, it's long. Yes, it focuses on his work (though, of course, has a noticeable section on the arrest). For those who can't read Russian, it's not the best written, as every sentence is in the style "in 19XX, he did Y." but it should clearly show that he is notable even outside being the 500th person on the FBI's Most Wanted list. --GRuban (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing to remember is that deletion does not constitute a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article — it constitutes a judgement on the existing version of the article, and a new article about a previously deleted topic can be created again if the notability claim and/or the sourcing can be made better than they were the first time. In fact, we have a principle that sometimes an article can be so bad that it becomes necessary to blow it up and start over, even if we can find evidence that the topic is eligible for a better article than the existing one — and this absolutely qualifies for that treatment, because it's placing the WP:WEIGHT of substance and sourcing on the wrong part of his biography. We're far better off putting this out of its misery, and then recreating a new and better article from scratch if desired, than we are just trying to revise this version. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's an essay. The principle is "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". --GRuban (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it stands should be deleted - basically so that the "history" and pushing of the "he is a felon" weight could be properly established in an article de novo (and such an article which establishes his notability might well be proper - deletion here is not an argument against a future article). Right now, the BLP fails to establish actual notability, and I am unsure that being a co-author on material cited in some Wikipedia articles actually establishes notability either. Nor does having an article in the Russian Wikipedia establish notability under the guidelines here. Collect (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete previous versions because they're unbalanced, we only delete them if they're outright BLP violations, and rather severe ones at that, which, I don't think this is, given that it's sourced. The Russian Wikipedia page is not bad at establishing notability, given that it shows what can be written about him, and is sourced, and the Stonewall Book Award is a notable award. Basically he meets two or even three points of WP:AUTHOR namely "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." - I have demonstrated that we widely cite him on Wikipedia, but that was just because it was easy, of course that is not quite enough, but he is also similarly widely cited by other Native American and Queer historians, which I will, if necessary demonstrate in a few days; and "4. The person's work ... has won significant critical attention," namely the Stonewall Book Award. (Also quite likely "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.", as it seems he is with his Spirit and the Flesh, which seems for some time to have been the definitive work about Two-Spirit, even if it is now criticized.) Ah, and - why am I not editing, balancing, establishing notability, and otherwise improving the page right now, then? Well, mainly because it's fully protected. So I have to do it here. --GRuban (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, neat, Bearcat unprotected. Thanks! Will be gradually improving it over the next few days. Hopefully before it's deleted! --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that the article, especially the Career section, has been expanded to show notability (e.g. winner of what is now called the Stonewall Book Award). The crime section is a mess and should be shortened to avoid putting undue weight on it. I might just go do that right now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, would you consider withdrawing your AfD, since it is no longer a BLP1E and because he actually was convicted and sentenced, per sources? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the section on his arrest and conviction. With a suitable expansion of the Career section, this could be a decent article about a person notable for a number of things. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been significantly expanded since this AfD was created. The AfD description was never accurate and, at this point, makes no sense to someone who might come to this page from the article. This AfD should have been closed as "keep", not relisted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in its current incarnation, there doesn't seem to be an issue with it. Well-sourced, meets WP:GNG, and the conviction/arrest is not given undue weight (although the other sections could be expanded). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm going to close this though I have participated, because I am closing against my own opinion. It seems clear that the consensus is that in at this this individual case, the evidence is not sufficient to show notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. Muthama Muasya[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Professors and Associate Professors/Readers are not generally considered notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet academic notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet any of the criteria listed at WP:ACADEMIC. In addition, the article's only source was a database entry, and no notability-proving reliable sources could be found. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 16:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a person's citation counts are high enough, we generally do regard them as notable by WP:ACADEMIC#1, no matter what their academic position - I am slightly concerned that the nominator's rationale seems to ignore this possibility, and that the existing delete recommendations give no indication of having factored this in to their considerations. I think it likely that, in this particular field, the subject's apparent h-index of 23 according to Google Scholar is not quite high enough to reach this notability threshhold - but it is probably close enough that the matter should be looked at by someone with the relevant expertise before this discussion closes. PWilkinson (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject's papers tend to have large numbers of authors and I cannot find any single-author papers, so it is not clear of the extent of the subject's contribution to the published work and to what extent he is being carried by a large research group. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Weak keep It has I think been well established that any Botanical author having a standard name is notable. He seems to be one of a group of authors who are authorities on a majro group of plants, and I would consider all of them notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I don't see how your assertion is a policy-based one. Which of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC do you think the subject of the article passed? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

being an authority in their subject. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"being an authority in their subject" is never a criterion under WP:ACADEMIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, looked in WP:GNG criteria and don't see that.--Rpclod (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not even in WP:ACADEMIC criteria.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I don't know where you got that from. How do you describe a Professor of gynecology? Authority in the field of medicine? If yes, does it automatically pass him for WP:ACADEMIC?. A master degree holder in the field of botany that found a new specie of plant is an authority in the field of botany? I think WP:ACADEMIC and every other notability criteria are clear enough. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

an authority on that group of plants. Or so it has always been interpreted. I am not necessarily saying it's a good idea, but that's what we have done, and it is a virtue to be consistent & predictable. That can be more important than arguing. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to incorporate that into WP:ACADEMIC that will be a discussion of another debate. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- changed to Keep per h-index arguments below ~~Comment~~ -- DGG, do you have a guess as to how many standard names there are in botany? Is it dozens, hundreds, or thousands? I haven't weighed in here, but this seems to be an important distinction. A few dozen -- keep on that basis. Hundreds or thousands would add little or no notability. Wish there were a botanist here... -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I can answer my own question. Putting in "Michael" found 53 entries alone and "Smith" 131. So I don't see this as sufficiently rare or notable on its own. I would revisit precedent and say that a standard name for a botanical author should not be considered sufficient grounds. I don't feel competent enough to judge whether h-index of 23, but with many coauthored papers in a high citation field is sufficient one way or another, so except for the standard name argument, I'll remain Neutral -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mscuthbert, you may be confusing notability with fame. There are indeed thousands. There are thousands of notable botanists. Classical biology is a low citation field, as with most descriptive sciences, because relatively few people work on anyone biological group. the sort of field where h=23 would not be impressive would be clinical medicine and some biomedical sciences, where hundreds of people work on the same narrow subject. But I agree that without more information, this may be borderline. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am confusing the two with respect to whether I would consider a standard name to be sufficient in itself. Based on what you say about h-index in the descriptive sciences, I've changed neutral to keep (I remember having this discussion before), but looking at statistics for authors added it appears that botany is adding 50-60 standard names per month (if I'm reading this correctly), suggesting that about 600 new botanists would become automatically notable each year -- that is far too low of a bar. How would it be that having a standard name is botany is an automatic pass but we're rejecting major awards in the humanities like winning the Guggenheim as not sufficient? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, WP:ACADEMIC does not rate one scholarly field above the other. It doesn't rate medicine above botany, just as biochemistry is not rated above microbiology. If H-index of 23, is not sufficient to establish notability in the field of medicine, it's simply not enough to establish notability in the field of botany if we are to follow the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines which editors are expected to follow. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different fields have different citation patterns. The use of h index without taking field into consideration is like saying scientists are not notable unless they write books the way people in the humanities do. That's why the WP:PROF guideline does not specify h index--there would be too many qualifiers needed, as is in fact explained under WP:PROF in the specific criteria notes, point 1, "Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries). The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure." DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm going to close this by IAR as a technical non-consensus, and I'm going to restart it as an AfD2. I have no personal opinion on this subject area, but I do have an opinion about the manner of discussion here. Too many of the arguments on both sides are far too personal, and a decisions about whether this is a suitable article for an encyclopedia would better be conducted in a more objective manner.

I remind those who wish to participate that the views of people who appear only for this discussion tend to be discounted unless they are based upon an understanding of WP policy. And it is WP policy that the intrinsic artistic merit of the work is not the principal factor determining whether there should be an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Docker's Guild[edit]

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

This is a musical project that's sourced almost entirely to official websites. There does not seem to be enough third-party coverage to warrant an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I concur. Artist has works on Spotify, but no track has more than 1000 plays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.113.20.135 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify plays have nothing to do with it (along with all the vandalizing you've been doing under different IPs, 161.113.20.135. You seem to have an ax to grind about this project or his creator and collaborators, but this is not the place to vent your ire, and certainly does not concern Wikipedia, me or my effort to improve the article. Write to the guys involved if you've got issues). Anyway, the point is independent sources and I agree there are too many referring to DG's site or label (although technically the label is a third party). There are loads of independent sources out there however, including specialized rock, prog and metal encyclopedias (Netal Music Archives for one). A little research should shift the sources to more neutral territory. I'll look into it time permitting.

That said, too many official websites is no reason to delete an article, it just needs to be improved.87.13.60.147 (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, Doug. Self-promotion is not very becoming of you. As for the allegations of multiple IPs...false. I am not associated with anyone else that has edited this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.113.11.16 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no skin in this battle, but I do find it ironic that the page's main supporter has only ever edited this page. Its obviously the artist himself, especially in light of the Italian IP address. A tad sad to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.81.212 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, Docker's Guild does appear to be popular enough to merit a Wikipedia page. However, the page as written right now is a textbook case of the artist using Wiki as a means of advertisement. If somebody is willing to clean it up, they should. But it definitely should not continue to exist as currently composed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.123.6 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to suggest this is anything other than self promotion for a non-notable "band" created by one person that appears to the "artist" himself. This page utterly fails to meet wiki notability guidelines, and reads like an advertisement. Furthermore, while free speech is important, the "artist's" blackface garb in the attached picture seems to unnecessarily provocative and racist. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---Delete. Non-notable and self-promoting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.86.52 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I find it quite disturbing that you would label "accusations of racism" irrelevant. The page is dominated by a picture of a man performing in blackface. This is, quite frankly, an expression of prejudice and hate that has no place on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I see no evidence of any coverage of this act in any reliable, third-party sources. This is a hate-filled advertisement masquerading as an article. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Racism: if you have proof, substantiate it, otherwise it's just biased gossip. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a tabloid. I've done a fair amount of reading and research and NOTHING confirms your point of view. There is not a single shred of evidence that DG has any racism in it. They are telling a sci-fi story and this is probably one of the characters. in your line of thinking, we should also remove uruk-hais, orcs, drows, dark elves, Darth Vader, Black Smurfs and any other "offensive" character out there. How about Tintin's first comic? The article on nazism or the KKK perhaps?

2. You see no evidence because you haven't done any research. A quick browsing of the web shows, randomly chosen, these neutral sources and I can see many more: Prog Archives (http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7581), Metal Music Archives (http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/artist/dockers-guild/?ac=docker%27s%20guild). you have to be inducted into these by a panel of experts, so it's not promotional material.

3. I find it ironic that many in the small group of "deleters" have not contributed a single word on Wikipedia. Going deeper into the history of the article, which I hadn't seen in years, I was pretty surprised to see the amount of vandalism in the last month. pointing out exactly the same accusations in a trolling format. Now new IDs appear out of nowhere repeating the same stuff. I think it is time the admins cleaned up this mess and that we all started looking at this from an ACADEMIC perspective instead of weak petty reasons for removing an article. Something is going on here that I don't quite understand, but it's pretty obvious.

Ironic that you talk about people who haven't contributed a single word on Wikipedia, yet you don't sign your edits yourself. Is that because when we look at your history, we will see that the only article you have ever edited is the DG article? Talk about hypocrisy. And why would that be? If you are the artist, just say so. 161.113.20.135 (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I agree with all the points of the unsigned comments above. I have no idea if this is the artist or not, and quite frankly I don't care one bit. I see many unsigned IPs that have worked on the article through the years, and from several countries, so obviously there are many contributing to this article, and no one has ever complained about this. Additional, those points are quite reasonable and much more balanced than the petty angry rebukes that seem to dominate this thread. Let's stick to the real problems: sources, biased content, the vandalizing that I have read as well and that nobody seems to be interested in. If you're so upset about the article why don't you improve it instead of being negative? Janthana (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How cute. "Janthana" weighs in...yet another IP addy/ID who has ONLY ever edited the DG page. How many aliases do you have, Doug? 161.113.20.135 (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a petty squabble between the artist and his stalkers, not sure which one of you is worse. All that said, my vote is DELETE. Nothing suggests notability, and appears to have definitely been authored as a self-promotional piece.199.233.236.82 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not considering any of the apparent comments listed above, none of this suggests minimal notability for the subject's own article, at best, Redirect to Douglas R. Docker's article. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to me it certainly "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." These sources have not been used properly but they exist. 213.144.92.194 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Douglas Docker's individual page. The project in question does not possess requisite notability, while Docker himself appears to do so.66.87.80.179 ([[User talk:66.87.80.17 9|talk]]) 12:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable act. User-created metal archives are just Wikis themselves, certainly not reliable sources.66.87.80.135 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, per your point "1. Racism: if you have proof, substantiate it" I believe the picture speaks for itself. Blackface is inherently racist; regardless of your intentions there is no way to separate blackface from its history of prejudice and hate. There is a world of difference between characters with dark skin and a white man painting his face black in a manner reminiscent of 19th-century minstrelsy. Wikipedia is not an outlet for your hate speech nor an arena for you to advertise the same. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Clear vanity project by artist with no legitimate third-party sources. Appears to lack any notability. RE: the racism/blackface issue; I doubt the artist is intending to be racist, but it shows insanely poor judgment. 71.185.45.31 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable project with international guests like many others (Avantasia, Ayreon, and more) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.14.144.52 (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Why in the world was this re-listed? Every keep vote is from an IP whose only Wiki activity is Docker's Guild related activity. All Italian IPs, and all likely the artist himself. Nothing suggests any notability of any kind. 213.191.220.180 (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at best redirect to Douglas Docker page. Project itself is not notable enough for individual page. 51.255.21.236 (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SwisterTwister. Too little third party coverage. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Particularly once the SPAs are discounted. Perhaps a merger might gain consensus if proposed on the talk page. Sandstein 08:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly massacre memorials[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Article is heavily based on partisan Azerbaidjani sources (violating WP:NPOV) and dead links – content not verifiable. No Wikipedia quality standard. No improvement of the article since 2014. Notability contested WP:N Markus2685 (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and sourced... I now realized the lister is tagging everything related to Khojaly massacre with an AfD. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment: You obviously totally ignored my text for why this article should be deleted. The article is sourced – yes. But not in accordance with Wikipedia guidlines. The sources are partisan non-reliable Azerbaidjani sources and not verifiable dead links. I am not tagging everything related to Khojaly massacre, only partisan, badly sourced articles which are not fulfilling Wikipedia:Notability guidlines. Markus2685 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is automatically counted to have voted delete, so no need to do it again. If there are dead links, tag them and try to find web archivals. I also don't understand how a source about a memorial existing could be partisan. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has severe issues and is marked as such since 2014. There has not been any changes and improvements to the article since then. Besides, it is the job of the creator of an article to source the content correctly with reliable and verifiable sources. But still there is the main issue of Notability. I don't see why we need an article on a encyclopedia about a list of commemorating memorials. Markus2685 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those 2014 tags were about neutrality. Again, I don't understand what the existence of memorials has to do with anything like that. When it comes to memorials, listing them separately is fairly common, like List of Armenian Genocide memorials. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect and don't get me wrong, but you can not compare the importance and notability of a memorial list (not article, like in this case) for the Armenian Genocide, or the List of Holocaust memorials and museums – both the most scientifically and historically studied Genocides worldwide with millions of deaths – with this rather "small" event, which is composed of an article, and not a list. Markus2685 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that the concept of the lists is the same. The reason for keeping is that there exist numerous sources... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article lists the memorials commemorating the events in different levels and ensures that this type of war crimes/genocides/massacres do not happen again. We need such articles for public awareness and avoid similar events in our peaceful future. Regards, Konullu (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC) (topic banned user)[reply]

No we don't. Furthermore your comment "this type of war crimes/genocides/massacres" exposes the real intent of this article. Misleading and manipulating the readership. Markus2685 (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...ensures that this type of war crimes/genocides/massacres do not happen again. We need such articles for public awareness and avoid similar events in our peaceful future." That's not what Wikipedia is for. What actual criteria per WP:V, WP:NOTE and WP:RS does this article satisfy? freshacconci talk to me 22:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The content should be mentioned in Khojaly massacre, rather than having its own article. WannaBeEditor (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the notability is contested. There's no need of having its own article. Hayterak (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Hayterak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I don't see the Point creating another Page we should follow the Quality Standards and avoid Sub-Topics especially with miserable content. Terrey Hills (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Terrey Hills (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I agree that it is a non notable topic.Sysfu (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Sysfu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Heavily based on aserbaidjani partisan sources. Clearly following an agenda. Sarah Rauscher (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Sarah Rauscher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete That topic does not consist of reliable sources at all.Albert Einstein 321 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Albert Einstein 321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. As mentioned above by others, this article follows the pattern of similar lists to avoid cluttering the main article. Grandmaster 21:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And still, the other ones are lists, but we are talking about having an article of its own. Furthermore there is still the major issue of really bad sourcing (just like the other similar articles here on wikipedia about this topic): heavily and mainly partisan, unreliable, non-third-party sources and dead links being used as "verification". This is not acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines and this issue has not been resolved although marked since 2014. It's a non-notable topic as mentioned a couple of times. Markus2685 (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A source about a monument being created cannot be partisan. It is only used to demonstrate that a monument exists, nothing else. That's all that is needed. If a number of such monuments exists, then why not have a list article? Grandmaster 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is typical WP:DISC. The list is based on reliable sources. There are a lot of number of Khojaly massacre memorials and we cannot hide it from the readers, even if some of us doesn't like it. --Interfase (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...typical WP:DISC." Care to elaborate? That's a pretty bad faith claim. freshacconci talk to me 22:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect -- I am not saying that the massacre was not a terrible event, but it was a single event; accordingly there should be a single article on the massacre. I appreciate that the main article is getting rather long. My country (UK) has thousands of memorials to WWI and WWII. However, WP does not have an article (or even a paragraph) on every memorial. The coverage in the massacre article of recognition and memorials is as much as we need. The rest is going beyond the encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't yet. There's no real reason why we shouldn't have a list though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, why not have a list of UK war memorials? I think it would be useful, especially for those who look for a particular one. It is good to have all listed in one place, with brief descriptions. Grandmaster 21:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an article about a number of memorials commemorating the same event. Can't see why this should be deleted. All the sourcing needs to do is prove they exist; whether the sources are biased or not is irrelevant as long as the article isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain basically as this seems enough for its own article but it's also still questionable for its own article apart from the event itself. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article--it would make more sense there, and would be where anyone would expect to find it. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am also willing to a merge. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Bangtan Boys. Sandstein 08:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeon Jungkook[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy(Pikhmikh (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

There are several articles linked, and some news articles, however most of the news articles relating to him are in Korean and therefore are pulled from translation sites rather than the source. He could be considered notable for his individual awards listed in the second paragraph of 'Bangtan Boys' (although the latter isn't related to music) as well as producing one of the tracks off of their album 화양연화 pt.1, which can be expanded on as needed. WP:COMPOSER. He was also recently involved in a controversy that isn't listed on the main group wiki due to the fact that it revolves solely around him. (Source) --Jeongguk (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect and perhaps protect if needed as there's certainly no better independent notability yet.discography filmography and tour and concert is about Bangtan Boys, And at this point, salt might be indicated, since it keeps getting recreated, with no improvement.(Shin hi (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Corrected discography and placed his participation single with a link to the group's discography, and deleted the tour/concert section. As seen on fellow bandmate Rap Monster's page, he retains his own filmography despite the majority of it overlapping with the group. The page has only been recreated once, over a year since the initial attempt, and I was not a participant in the original article nor am I trying to create a page for no reason; I genuinely wish to contribute content where it would be appropriate, in this case being an individual page. If there is anything else that needs to be added, I will continue to do so, as I am still building the page with more content when I remember it or find suitable sources to include. Jeongguk (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

here is wikipedia no fanpage, this article is weak and Does not support of Wikipedia policies,he just collaborated with other idols in one theme song and all his "Unofficial tracks" are other idol's song cover no his song and his discography is not his solo work he does not have solo discography or song in korean chart ,No evidence of notability (Pikhmikh (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete- it seems to be different from the last version I saw nothing has changed in the time since that page was removed to have made this person individually notable.(Toomass (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination was never properly listed at WP:AFD/Today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 05:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article should not be deleted as many "new" fans or people who want to know him comes to wikipedia and look up on him. many other websites do not have information about him as updated as wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaaaa.syj (talk • contribs) 04:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- As noted all users any valid reference could not confirm this article and he have not notable work outside of his group that Is necessary for separate article in wikipedia It's better that this article redirect to Bangtan Boys article (Pikhmikh (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Delete and Redirect again to Bangtan Boys as he's still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Student Association[edit]

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

This is just a list of external links to different Thai student associations, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that there doesn't appear to be an overarching "Thai Student Association" that all of these individual associations are affiliated to. Rather, the article seems to be grouping many different Thai student associations together. I can't find coverage of Thai student associations in general in reliable (English-language) sources. As such, I don't think the topic is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like one listed has an article. This is a list-article which allows for coverage of local groups, avoiding need/pressure for separate articles for each. As I commented at another AFD for a similar group, this coverage is far less than huge ( perhaps.undue) coverage of US-based fraternities and sororities. Also, the Nom lacks reason... Has subject coverage in sources even been checked, in English? In Thai? Just because there are external links does not suggest a problem with the topic.--doncram 19:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. Some comments added above. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - thanks. See feb 21 Bangkok post coverage of "elite students self-censorship" article (from news search link above) largely about Thai student associations in UK. There is much coverage in local university newspapers too. Looks like important group actually. do ncr am 20:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is not one overarching governance of Freemasons and many other association groupings. However all Thai and Vietnamese in U.S., say, will know of TSA and VSA. Vietnamese Student Association topic is also at AFD now. How about one big RFC calling for deletion of all ethnic/national support student organizations and give notice to Wikiprojects of every nation and ethnicity? Rather than taking each one separately, let's involve a few thousand wikipedians. And see how many worldwide news media will cover what Wikipedia is doing to itself now. :) ??? How about eliminating all women's writers groups too? :) --doncram 20:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - This AfD is not about deleting all articles on such groups, but rather deleting a directory of them. Feel free to start an RfC, but I think the AfDs should be allowed to run their course. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notice of this AFD posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam. --do ncr am 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other comments by Cordless Larry above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete, or stubbify & rewrite. Article as it stands is a list, which should be titled List of Thai student associations. While the appropriateness of a list topic is debatable, this borders on violating WP:NOTDIR, as almost none of those listed organisations are by themselves notable. However, Thai student associations in general (note the uncapitalised title) are a valid subject that warrants a proper prose article. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTDIR. Not notable in current form, would have to be fundamentally rewritten as an overview article. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 21:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now and Draft and Userfy if needed later when there is better content available. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 06:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Count It All Joy (Mr. 2Kay album)[edit]

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

Another non-notable album by a Nigerian singer. Fails WP:NALBUM Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:31, 20 February 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 February 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets criterias 5, 6, and 7 of WP:NALBUMS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bello96 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets criterias 6, and 7 of WP:NALBUMS and also the songs meets criterias 3 of WP:NSONGS. --Nonso Nde (talk) 14:53, 10 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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gorman[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography, article lacks sufficient secondary sourcing independent of subject to confirm notability of subject. Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage like [18], [19], [20] shows that it's possible that he's notable. The problem is that these articles aren't really about him so much as reporting about something else, then mentioning him. It's difficult for me to find truly in-depth coverage of his life separate from soundbites to the press. There are hits on Google Books, but a lot of them seem to be quotations of articles he wrote at High Times, or they're first-person stories of exploits he made or others shared with him, which I'm not sure can give the same notability as a secondary source. This could be recreated it were properly sourced and better demonstrated notability. My own searches don't conclusively show his notability, and I think it's better to delete than have a promotional, poorly-sourced article on a questionably notable person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 8 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kent James[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and very little adequate sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Of the sources here, we have two articles in alt-weeklies (which would be acceptable amid a diversity of solid sourcing, but are not widely distributed enough to carry GNG in their own right if they're the best you can do for sources), two directory entries which cannot support notability at all, and one article on a non-notable blog. I actually have heard of the guy's prior band before, so I made an especially concerted WP:BEFORE effort to find the degree of sourcing necessary to save this, on the grounds that if I as a Canadian have heard of a small independent American band before then surely more substantive media coverage must exist somewhere because how else could I possibly ever have heard of them in the first place -- but I came up completely dry no matter where I turned, and nothing here constitutes enough notability to grant him an exemption from having to be sourced better than this. Unfortunately it's a delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if better sourcing can actually be found somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga. MTV. New York Times. These are not enough for you? His IMDb page is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.156.68 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2016 March 6 (UTC)
NYT doesn't discuss James, and IMDb is not a reliable source. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times reference is not an article about James, but simply a "directory" section of their website on which all films automatically get a profile that transcludes the same film's profile on AllMovieGuide — so it verifies a film's existence, but is not a source that can confer notability on that film, or the people in it, in and of itself. And IMDb is not a reliable source for Wikipedia content (it's a user-generated database that can and does frequently contain uncaught errors), and is not "enough" to get a person a Wikipedia article in and of itself. And the article doesn't claim (or more importantly source) anything about either Lady Gaga or MTV that would constitute a genuine claim of notability. If he'd toured the entire country as Lady Gaga's opening act, then that might count for something, but merely being on the same bill as her at one single performance in one single venue on one single day does not pass WP:NMUSIC, and he had a brief cameo appearance in one episode of an MTV reality show, but was not a member of the show's core cast (WP:NACTOR does not confer automatic notability on every single person who ever made a one-off guest appearance on a TV show.) And neither of those facts is supported by any reliable source coverage of him. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are deleting references in hope of deleting a page you are obviously very jealous of. Someday gay men will realize that they need to support each other instead of tear each other down at every turn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.156.68 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valid referencing for a Wikipedia article is not "any webpage at all that makes the statement you're looking for a reference for" — only certain specific types of sourcing can qualify as supporting notability, and none of the new sources that you've been trying to add to the article are valid ones in that regard. And you cannot WP:REFBOMB five separate references onto one statement, either — we only need one, and very occasionally two at most, valid citations for any given statement, and piling more than two references onto the same statement doesn't bolster the case. And finally, having or not having a Wikipedia article is not a matter of "supporting" or "tearing down" the subject, or of "jealousy" on anybody's part — Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are based on the presence or absence of sufficient reliable sourcing to support a valid claim of notability, and have nothing to do with whether anybody likes or dislikes the topic. I hate Donald Trump, but he's clearly notable regardless of my own personal feelings, and I'd accordingly never suggest that he shouldn't have a Wikipedia article — and I love my five-year-old niece, but that doesn't mean she qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Nobody is owed a Wikipedia article just because they exist.

And as I already noted in my original nomination statement, I worked my ass off trying to find the quality and type of sourcing necessary to save this — so I genuinely tried to "support" and "build up" the subject, because at least in principle I do want it to become keepable, so nobody gets to tell me that I'm motivated by any personal animus against him. But the quality of sourcing needed to make him keepable just isn't out there. That's unfortunate, and I'm actually a bit disappointed by that — but my desire to save this article doesn't grant it an exemption from having to comply with our notability and sourcing rules. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has been greatly improved with links and references. Internal and external. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.156.68 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't. Of the seven sources currently in the article, there are still only two — Bay Area Reporter and Willamette Week — that count for anything at all, I've already explained why the other five aren't helping, and you haven't added any new sources since the last time I addressed the problems with the current ones.

Just to be fair, I'll go over the problems with the existing sources again, one by one: #3 and #4 are directory sources, which are not reliable or notability-conferring sources for the same reasons that IMDb isn't a reliable or notability-conferring source. #5 and #7 are not real media outlets, but blogs. And #6 is a blurb, not a piece of substantive coverage. That's why none of them assist notability at all — and the two sources, Bay Area Reporter and Willamette Week, that do count as legitimately reliable ones do not add up to enough RS coverage to get an article kept if they're the only legitimate sources in the article. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sad how the only people on here trying to delete this page are bitchy uptight gay men. We all know that the only people they support are women...almost without exception. Interesting that there are absolutely no straight people protesting this. Btw, this page is already available in a couple languages...and let's not forget his press in Australia's Blue and DNA magazines...in GAB in Germany...on the cover of QX in London...articles in Brazil...etc. He certainly deserves this small mention of a page. If Wikipedia is indeed a reputable source in itself....this controversial page will stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyDog11 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC) — DaddyDog11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Gay activist" has now been removed so all of you can relax. He does not represent you. Trust me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.156.68 (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 06:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SQ/200[edit]

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

This looks like a direct translation of El Rubius. Popularity is not an indicator of notability and fails WP:GNG. Soetermans. T / C 08:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Spanish Wikipedia article you link to has numerous references to Spanish newspapers like El País, El Mundo, and La Vanguardia which appear to cover him. I don't speak Spanish, so I am not in a position to judge whether these sources are significant coverage per GNG, can you explain why they aren't? 109.76.247.193 (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I checked WP:VG/RS's custom Google search engine. Looking up "Rubén Bend Gundersen", "SQ/200" and "El Rubius" do not bring up any relevant sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this channel doesn't look relevant to the English wikipedia, not to mention how much work the article would need. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet solidly better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: for the time being I did move it to The Rubius, which I guess is his popular name. It just dawned on me that "SQ/200" isn't mentioned at all in the article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article references significant coverage in reliable sources including El Pais, Spain's most popular newspaper, La Vanguardia, Spain's fourth most popular newspaper and El Periodico another popular Spanish newspaper. I think WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Profiled by major Spanish newspapers. Easily notable. Suggest moving to El Rubius. - hahnchen 20:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Y Done. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to California Dreams. Clear consensus that this doesn't rate a stand-alone article. Much confusion between delete and two different possible redirect targets. Overall, redirect seems to make the most sense because they're cheap and preserve the history. Going with California, which was mentioned more often and higher episode count. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William James Jones[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 02:44, 27 February 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 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from his 21 episodes of USA High, there's nothing to suggest better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep prominent role in 78 episodes of California Dreams, and 21 episodes of USA High, I think he passes notability guidelines.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines about verifiable sourcing available, not about what you think is "notable". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dang, I'm torn here.... Between California Dreams and USA High, he clears WP:NACTOR. However, as someone who's worked on articles like those recently, I also know that independent coverage of these kinds of shows (let alone coverage of the actors on these shows!) is very scarce indeed. My guess is that, despite two starring roles, he does in fact fail WP:GNG and WP:BASIC... However, if this one gets deleted, Michael Cade absolutely will need to be AfD'ed too... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California Dreams as a compromise as I could say keep but this article is still questionable apart from that series, the best next thing is 21 episodes of a TV series, but this article is still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although Redirect would be fine as well. Clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG, and his credits don't rise to meeting WP:NACTOR either. While he clearly was one of the leads in California Dreams, he did not have a prominent role in his only other acting stint which even comes close to satisfying NACTOR, in USA High. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sourcing's been provided and the nom's not returned to answer the few questions .... so I'm closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procovery[edit]

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

Orphaned article whose subject fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why might you feel the topic fails GNG? May I suggest that you use the search term "procovery" site:.gov on google search? Also use the search term "procovery" site:.edu on google search. You will come up with multiple government publications ([21][22][23][24][25]) and multiple educational institutions (like Columbia University, University of South Florida, Journal of Behavioral Health, St. Catherine University, University of St. Thomas) publishing journals and papers deeply discussing the topic. You may also try Google Books search, which throws up some lovely books discussing procovery ([26][27][28]). Finally, if you are really intending to take this topic up to FA status, type "procovery" on Google Scholar search. Some of the papers that discuss procovery are quite interesting. This listing in the Mental Health and Social Inclusion publication ranks a Procovery book amongst the top 10 books on recovery. It's a quite well researched topic. The article needs to be improved and structured using the available references. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ditto above by Xender Lourdes. It seems to easily meet notability and with multiple secondary sources. So much so should this be WP:SNOWed? (Sure, the article needs a lot of improving, but that is what we are all supposed to be doing.) Eno Lirpa (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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