Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 February	22 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Air Flight 263[edit]

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

Non-notable incident, completely fails WP:Aircrash (yes i know it isn't policy, but it is an excellent guideline for inclusion criteria), completely unnecessary article Petebutt (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents states: "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles (my emphasis), it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Biscuittin (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this was an overrun of 30 metres. The aircraft suffered minimal to no damage. Not notable, or even worth mentioning at the aircraft type, airline or airport articles. Mjroots (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable aviation incident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this may have been covered in a few WP:RS immediately after the fact, I do not see any lasting coverage to impart encyclopedic notability. WP:NOTNEWS appears to apply here. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Nordic Dragon 08:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A runway overrun does not make this notable. If the aircraft was written off in this incident, then maybe, but it didn't. So it fails WP:GNG. Class455fan1 (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States anti-government unrest[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article appears to consist of original research, especially novel synthesis of information about a variety of events in (especially) recent US history in an attempt to connect them. Put succinctly, this article fails WP:NOT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't there an article quite like this one? I can't remember its name right now but I'll try to find it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it but it was a list of movements like Sovereign citizen movement, the type listed here as well. If it doesn't exist and I just remembered wrong, then maybe we can rename this as List of American Antigovernment Movements or something. It would be handy having a general list. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that article was deleted as well. In any event, if there were another article, this would (at best) be an A10 candidate. Even then this is just a pile of synth with no real indication that they're related even under the title "anti-government" (see LjL's comment below). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You're right, since many of these aren't explicitly antigovernment and the other list might still exist in another form somewhere and even if it didn't it might just be best to start it completely anew instead of with this. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as baseless WP:SYNTH of various loosely-related topics, some of which are plausibly not anti-government at all in the first place, but rather asking for "more" government. LjL (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH that has no idea how to connect any of these subjects together in any way. Nate • (chatter) 03:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SYNTH which is essentially one person's collection of political opinions. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody else seems to call it this or to have collected these incidents together – or, at least, into some kind of overarching movement like this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SYNTH, mere garbled, POV WP:COATRACK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasil Ahmad[edit]

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

Subject is only notable for being killed. Article should be deleted per WP:1E and WP:NOT § NEWS Skudrafan1 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried looking for any article this could be merged to but had trouble finding anything suitable. Taliban article's crimes had massive massacres and this would feel out of place there. Looking at the news stories reffed in the AfD page, the police in connection with the boy looked to be Afghan Uniform Police with their blue outfits and distinct hats. But as you can see the Uniform Police don't have their own article. They're briefly mentioned at Afghan National Police. The incident doesn't really fit there either. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was not known only for one event as the sources clearly show: CNN say "An 11-year-old Afghan boy who had been praised for his bravery in leading security forces in battle against the Taliban". The Independent say "His role firing mortars and machine guns from the roof of a besieged government compound during the 43-day stand-off led to him being feted as a hero by the police militia with whom he fought." The Guardian say "Child soldier became a kind of grim celebrity in Afghanistan after he reportedly helped break a Taliban siege last summer." There are numerous other sources along similar lines, and that's just in English. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:1E:"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." and validated by massive coverage. 12-year old war hero killed in targeted assassination. No wonder it got worldwide coverage. I trust User:Philafrenzy or some other editor will undertake to expand it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully intended to and have a press cutting on my desk from 5 Feb. It didn't occur to me that anyone would AFD it in the meantime without reading the sources but after this much time here I should have known better. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sadly true. I do not know Nom, and he may have been merely careless. But too many editors bring articles to AFD without running WP:BEFORE, and there are others who AFD anything that shows Islamism is a negative light. Next time, try putting up a construciton tag when you need a little more time to build an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just careless I guess. Skudrafan1 (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skudrafan1 We are all careless sometimes. In this case, since no one else has voted delete, yo can withdraw the nomination and spare other editors the work of reviewing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I often use that tag but in this case naively thought the range of sources spoke for themselves. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:1E and GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As E.M.Gregory notes, it meets WP:1E; as well as WP:GNG, as BabbaQ notes. Would be even better if someone expanded it, noting my own hypocrisy in not doing so. Edwardx (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Office warranty[edit]

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

This article implies that an "office warranty" is a standard part of commercial real estate law, but it is actually a neologism. Googling the phrase returns this article, a recently-founded and very Internet-marketing-savvy company specializing in office warranties, and basically nothing else. Meanwhile the creating editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and is believed to be a paid editor (according to the blocking administrator's comment).

There is no speedy deletion criteria which precisely fits this situation, but I do believe the article should be deleted, and the sooner the better. Thparkth (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is maybe a Wiktionary entry and the one source that was provided was about something different. fwiw I was investigating some things on Elance and found a job asking for a WP article on "office warranty" to be created. The editor who created this has been subsequently indeffed for socking and if you look at the socks they all have all the hallmarks of freelancers (paid editors). again, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the absence of references, no evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does G5 apply? Adam9007 (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically no, because the user was not blocked at the time the article was created (in any of his personas). Having said that it, the block came only a few hours later, and I personally would definitely look the other way if an admin decided "close enough is good enough" and deleted it as G5. Thparkth (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if this gets snow deleted anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's see...which of the several compelling reasons for deleting shall I go with... unsourced? sockpuppet? dicdef? .. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete blank on sources, looks like something somebody made up one day if I'm honest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ritchie. Made up content should be deleted on sight. No google hits. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Soule[edit]

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

Julian is not independently notable at all, unlike his brother. The sources used currently on the article are two Dota 2 ones (which in no way means Julian is notable, just because he worked on a game that is), along with Mobygames and VGMDB (two user submitted sites, and therefore not allowed). Just googling Julian brings 90% of the pages and articles for his brother, so you aren't going to find much else on him. This should simply redirect to Jeremy Soule. I'm not even sure Julian has even worked on a project that didn't involve his brother anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now because my searches found some links but nothing convincingly enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Metacritic lists his games, about all I could find. [1] --ERAGON (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Jeremy Soule, this seems like WP:INHERIT. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 QVC#QVC US. Don't usually redirect but IMHO redirect is the better outcome (and tbh didn't really require a discussion ... but whatever redirecting anyway) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FFANY Shoes on Sale[edit]

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

Promotional, unreferenced, insignificant Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I'm amazed that this article is nearly 10 years old. I were actually able to find many sources, but I think this belongs to QVC as a sidenote. I don't think there's anything worth merging here. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Changed my vote. I'll add a minor mention to QVC. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, QVC#QVC US has a detailed mention of it with sources. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Redirect to section in QVC article without reservation. Nate • (chatter) 03:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy with that.Rathfelder (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty much a WP:SNOW redirect with the nominator agreeing as well. Involved can't close so we'll wait for anyone. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to QVC § QVC US. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Smith (professional telephone voice)[edit]

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

Appears to be successful in her field but fails both WP:GNG & WP:CREATIVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this is enough for the applicable creative people notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it could be considered to have significant coverage, it is not within reliable sources - most content is from personal websites and reddit. As such, I don't think it fits within WP:GNG. Ajraddatz (Talk) 09:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were enough reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG, then she'd be eligible to have an article regardless of whether "professional telephone voice" was compelling enough to pass WP:CREATIVE or not — but the sourcing here is entirely to primary sources like her own company's website, her own company's press releases and a Reddit AMA. No person, regardless of the notability claim being made, ever gets to keep an article that's sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Livadas[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. No references based on reliable, third-party published sources. The subject has written many volumes of poetry and prose, but none of it appears to have been covered or reviewed in reliable journals. The current article links to a number of interviews (and there are many more online), but they're virtually all Blogspot and Wordpress sites. The few domains are unreliable (like Blues.gr) or were self-submitted by the subject (like Empty Mirror Books). A Google search finds pages and pages of links, but most of them are copies of Wikipedia or comment spam. Woodroar (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Dear sir. the domains are totally reliable and official; as the official web page of national data of all the Greek authors is. All the facts of this page are real and totally official, as well as the bibliography, both the greek one and the editions published abroad. ~~In case you procceed with the deleting of the page "Yannis Livadas" i will be forced to appeal with every legal right and force to press charges~~. Please fell free to contact me if you believe that there are any further loose ends on this "matter". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Mike (talk • contribs) 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mike is indef'ed for the above comment per Wikipedia:No legal threats. DMacks (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mike has now been unblocked after making it clear that he meant he would pursue Wikipedia dispute procedures rather than legal means, so I've struck that part of his comment above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to the notability and verifiability problems, there's kind of a latent issue that a bot actually noticed way back in 2013: Much of this article—the bibliography section—appears to be copied and pasted from Livadas' LinkedIn profile. While the list of publications itself is probably not so creative to merit copyright protection, it's a bad sign from an article credibility perspective when you've got that much copied-and-pasted text. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Even if the list isn't a copyvio, it appears to be plagiarized. In addition to that, there are serious concerns about promotional content. Taken with the notability concerns voiced by OP and subsequent !votes, it's clear that this article just doesn't belong. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of coverage that satifies WP:BIO notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very inadequately sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Thomas.W ^talk 13:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Boyles[edit]

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

I'm not convinced she meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Created by WP:SPA recently. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Dual Freq. Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like it is just minor local news items due to a failed bid for mayor of Salem, Illinois. Nothing significant or national, so it fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:POLITICIAN. I placed the notability tag on the article and have observed meat / sock puppetry that insists on placing her name on Salem's wiki page as well. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she didn't win the election and has worked in just 1 show. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:POLITICIAN.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this satisfies both the politicians and entertainers notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 19:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhett Hall[edit]

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

There are a few older secondary sources regarding this NFL player, but none really go into detail that much. The only one that does mentions something of substance is a NY Times report on an injury that this player incurred. Other than that, there is little to report about. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 17:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The nominator is clearly unfamiliar with WP:NGRIDIRON. Having played multiple seasons in the NFL makes him notable by default, regardless of how many references one can or cannot find. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Shawn in Montreal.--Yankees10 18:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Sources linked to in the article confirm that Hall played eight seasons in the NFL, and was a Super Bowl champion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Played 68 games in the NFL and passes WP:NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vatu programming language[edit]

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

Programming language created last year, no third-party references. Proposed deletion was removed by the article's creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The footnotes more or less explicitly admit that this is not notable. The only hits I could find on Google scholar appeared to be scanning errors. No evidence of passing WP:GNG given or found. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage; seems to be a personal project. Esquivalience ^t 23:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - creator admits it is 'just a research project'. Fails WP:MADEUP. Blythwood (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- you are invited to my talk page to give me a few whacks! (non-admin closure) ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 19:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Hale (American football)[edit]

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

Beyond a mention of his mormon beliefs, I cannot find any reliable sources for this person that focus in some detail over this subject. Fails WP:GNG. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 17:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He played 18 games in the NFL. KEEP OBVIOUSLY.

Keep, Cleanup needed and sources need added, but it satisfies WP:NGRIDIRON because he's played in the NFL. I was able to locate some sources for his playing career. Throw a couple of those sources in, do some cleanup, this article is good to go.--Rockchalk717 17:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a look at WP:NGRIDIRON -- but it was my perception that the lack of reliable sources that truly go into some detail would overtrump such a guideline. Appears not -- you should know what to use! ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 17:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol all good. I recommend doing a google search for "David Hale Ravens" and you will find some sources you can use. Then just do some cleanup. The infobox needs to switched to the NFL Player infobox though.--Rockchalk717 17:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another speedy keep from the same nominator, who I hope will not continue nominating article of NFL players, as it's simply an utter waste of time, per WP:NGRIDIRON. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Played 18 games in the NFL and passes WP:NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Sources linked to in the article confirm that Hale played two seasons in the NFL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Carr (basketball)[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy WP:NBASKETBALL because he never played in a major pro basketball league. Article also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH because he has no significant media coverage, owns no records, never was never named All-American or All-conference, and was not named to the Hall of Fame. Rockchalk717 17:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. Rikster2 (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - No valid reason has been given for deletion and nope "notability" isn't a valid reason in the slightest, No objections to speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Haider[edit]

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

Notability I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both the Ekushey Padak award & his involvement in designing the Shaheed Minar, Dhaka appear notable. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,Ekushey Padak award and his role in the contruction of the first Shaheed Minar, Dhaka establishes notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO criterion #1. Worldbruce (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning Ekushey Padak is a huge feat. ~Altaf~ (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a deletion discussion with such an inadequate explanation of the reason for deletion should be speedily closed? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One driver numbers[edit]

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

This list has little use and not much appeal beyond the Formula 1 fans. The numbers that are used during the current season are always listed in the article for current season. All this lists adds to that is the four or five former drivers that still hold the rights to a number and the one number that has been permanently retired. That does not seem to be enough for a standalone article for this concept that has only been in use for two of the nearly 70 years Formula One has existed. T v x1 15:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel that it being a new concept on the suggestion/implication that it won't last long enough to become relevant or isn't article-worthy until it's been around for a decade or so is irrelevant. There are outside sources that compile driver numbers and detail why they elected to choose them. For example, Pastafarians have only been around for a decade in the thousands of years of diversified religion, and is even acknowledged as a parody religion, yet that article exists because the sources make it notable. And the notion that it'd be of little to no use for anyone not interested in Formula One is a matter of personal opinion. Regardless, there are literally tens of thousands upon tens of thousands, perhaps even up to a million, of articles on Wikipedia that appeal to only a very specific audience. We do not decide what is and isn't notable. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 02:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAP. T v x1 02:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE This is making a list for the sake of making a list. What number a Formula One racing driver places on his car matters only in sense of aesthetics. There is no inherent value in a race number, a driver is not more or less likely to improve their chances by having a lower number. Even the #1 traditionally put aside for the reigning champion has value only pertaining to the previous years performance, not the current year. --Falcadore (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are other various aesthetic-only lists within the F1 community with far less sources than this. Again, the wiki editors do not decide what is notable and what is not. Unrelated, your comment is not signed. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you feel that strongly that there are other articles that shouldn't be here either, by all means nominate them for deletion. Their current existence is utterly irrelevant to this discussion, however. And agains as well, while editors don't decide notability, they do determine whether notability is sufficient by looking at the sources. T v x1 14:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There are other various aesthetic-only lists within the F1 community with far less sources than this. You know why this is not a viable defence? Because it could mean these other articles should also be deleted. Each article stands or falls purely on its own merits not upon the merits of other articles. --Falcadore (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The nominator is right to say premise that "All this lists adds to that is the four or five former drivers that still hold the rights to a number and the one number that has been permanently retired." – but for me, that plus the description of the change in numbering practices in 2014, is adequate basis for a low-importance start-class article. I disagree with the above unsigned comment that this is an indiscriminate list – it's short, finite, wholly unambiguous and has no synth or OR issues, which certainly doesn't qualify as the classic indiscriminate list in my book. Aspirex (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Tvx1 has already made the argument I would use for such a pointless, trivial list that doesn't need to exist. It only counts the numbers used by drivers since 2014, and a list accounting for all driver numbers throughout the sport's history would too be pointless (what would someone do with it?). Holdenman05 (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The list only goes back to 2014 because that is when drivers were allowed to choose their own numbers. Before that, they were assigned by the FIA on a year-to-year basis. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – So? It's still numbers used by drivers in Formula One, which is what this list suggests. Holdenman05 (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree much with Aspirex. It is referenced with reliable sources and seems to be notable. I'm not sure if it is really a list though, as the in prose text is substantial, perhaps it should be renamed just to Formula One driver numbers or similar. Mattlore (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the prose is a bit excessive, Mattlore. While this is not an article I created, in fact I've made only a single contribution, changing the table to the format I had been updating in my sandbox (which has much less prose), it does appear someone based a large portion of it on my work, which would be why it seems I have an elevated interest in this discussion. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 15:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to mean that the prose was excessive, it is a good thing in my opinion. I was just questioning if the title should start with "List of". Mattlore (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered that same question myself. Aspirex (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a new concept, but it's widely commented on in reliable sources. The prose IMO is good, as it highlights how/why different numbers are used, although it needs to be sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the disposition of this article, but must point out that "not much appeal beyond the Formula 1 fans" (of whom I am not one) is invalid as a reason for deletion. It is merely a tautologous statement, that applies to every article, that it is only of interest to people who are interested in it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is simply not true. At least that's no the goal of our editing. Tvx1 21:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you care to explain why that is not true? There is certainly no requirement that every article should be of interest to everyone. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That we write articles and their content only thinking about a limited group of people. Our philosophy in the WikiProject is that any lay reader should be able to click the random article button, arrive on the article an be able to understand it completely without going to any other ones first. Per WP:NOTGUIDE, we should not be writing articles for F1 fans how drivers pick their numbers and for how long they keep them. The current season article lists the numbers that will be seen this year. What does this article do on top of that, that it makes that we must include it? Tvx1 22:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which section of WP:NOTGUIDE do you claim applies here? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:NOTGUIDE as it is not a fanguide regardless if it's a new concept, also where are the notable historic uses (such as #27 when it was exclusively used by Ferrari in the 1980s and 90s and Nigel Mansell's red #5). Also, I don't see any List of NASCAR Sprint Cup driver numbers, in which have been far more notable than in F1 (such as Richard Petty's #43 and Dale Earnhardt's #3). In all, more deserving of a F1 Wiki rather than a Wikipedia page, if it does exist. Donnie Park (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...but on the other hand, this list should be restructured as an article titled Formula One driver numbers (about the history of racing numbers) because as a "fanlist" (in this current state), there is nothing useful about it. Donnie Park (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...but the current state of the article is that it provides information about racing numbers, not just what you characterise as a "fanlist". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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✈ 23:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Haley (South Carolina)[edit]

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

No apparent notability of his own, purely by association with his politician wife. Kevin McE (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As creator, I freely admit that this is a tricky sort of articles re: notability. (note that spouses of governors of American states is a Category) But spouses of prominent politicians do become notable for that alone, see: Todd Palin. They get written up in the press during campaigns and during their spouse's term in office, and people want to know about them during the campaign. Michael Haley's Wikipedia page got ~19,000 hits in the 5 days leading up to the S. Carolina primaries, presumably because he is married ot a woman being discusses as a possible Vice-Presidential nominee. In the course of the current campaign season, I created: Mary Pat Christie, Karen Waldbillig Kasich, Jane O'Meara Sanders, and Jeanette Rubio. The recent AFD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio may be useful to this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see both sides of this argument, but I think the fact that the page got 19K hits in 5 days speaks volumes about the usefulness of the page, and indeed about Mr. Haley's apparent notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.113.11.16 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator is referencing the fact that other articles they have created have been kept at deletion discussions. That is not a valid reason to keep this article unfortunately. WP:INHERIT. Only partners and spouses of politicians with significant notability on their own should have individual articles. AusLondonder (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am "referencing" the fact that First Ladies and Gentlemen of American States with no claim to notability beyond the kind of coverage that results from the election of a spouse as governor do have articles. See: Neva Egan, Nellie Connally, Mary Rockefeller, we have dozens, probably scores of first spouse bios on people with no more notability independent of the Gubernatorial spouse than Columba Bush or Carole Crist. This is so because WP:INHERIT makes an explicit exception for First Lady that apears to have been effectively extended to a great many Gubernatorial First Spouses.

Note, however, that like other First Spouse articles, Michael Haley is verifiably and reliably sourced. This is possible because First spouse status comes with press attention. The press attention is real, and sustained press attention to an individual's career confers notability.

Note also, however, those 19K hits on his page. Nikki Haley is in the national spotlight and people turn to Wikipedia to find out who the spouse is.

More than 8,000 page views yesterday, 27K in the last 10 days.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said when I created the page on Karen Kasich (see:Talk:Karen Waldbillig Kasich,) "If at some point, Kasich folds his tent and heads back to Columbus, we can consider whether to redirect this article to the Governor's page."

I leave it to others to decide whether to keep this or merge and redirect to Nikki Haley.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any notability. For his wife, not for him. Could be merged to her article but not worth a standalone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that There is, in fact, a great deal more coverage of Haley in his roles as a military officer and as "First Gentleman" than I had realized. Have added some of it to the page. It is generated by the fact that he is married to a national political figure, but, once coverage exists, it does not matter for WP:GNG purposes what caused it to exist.

-sourcing for the details of his life: childhood, parents, career is taken entirely from reliable news media coverage, which is in-depth, not confined to South Carolina, and began during his wife's 2010 gubernatorial campaign.

- Note also the two very minor firsts mentioned in multiple press accounts: first gubernatorial spouse on active military duty, and first First Gentleman of South Carolina.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

just fyi Prompted by this AFD, I have started a thread on the talk page of WP:INHERIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes GNG and needs to pass nothing else. However, Haley also has a few "firsts" and that lends to his notability as well. Btw, I did comment on the talk page of WP:INHERIT and then came over here to look at the article. This isn't the first time I've seen a spouse up for AfD and the ones that are kept are like this one: they pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to deal with this article, and this article alone in this response (I'll address the overall concept in E.M.Gregory's thread on the Inherit talk page. This article clearly meets the level of coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. If the coverage were simply from local SC sources, I would be more hesitant, but the current references include national attention. The rare status of his military service I think makes him a more attractive subject for reporters. He has even received attention in international news sources such as the India Times, as well as other national coverage, such as CS Monitor, New York Daily News, and the Huffington Post. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. and per the fact that user above promises to improve the article further. Just because you are a spouse of a politician doesnt make you not notable.BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Martinez[edit]

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

Orphan article about a non-notable local city councilmember. Half the article is about her failed bids for mayor and the state legislature. Of the eight citations in the article, five link to her defunct campaign web site, one links to her City biography, one links to a local blog, and one links to a local web site. She does not meet any of the notability criteria outlined at WP:POLITICIAN. OCNative (talk) 12:00, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Ana is not in the narrow range of metropolitan global cities in which we accept serving on the city council as sufficient notability in and of itself — rather, it's in the class of cities where we only accept city councillors as notable if you can source and substance them exponentially better than has even been attempted here: of the eight listed sources, six are primary sources (own website, profile on city's website) and the other two are blogs, which means exactly zero of them can carry a person over WP:GNG at all. And being an unelected candidate for higher office doesn't help, either — a person has to win election and hold a notable office to get into Wikipedia, not merely run for one. So for every conceivable reason, this is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bearcat. If new references are found I can change my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite my respect for people willing to do the hard work of local government, because local coverage of the type I'm seeing is not Wikipedia notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

{subst:afd3|pg=Michele Martinez}}

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the War on Terror[edit]

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

A clear and obvious POV fork of War on Terror. Jtrainor (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has existed since 2004. War on Terror mostly describes the events (as in it's not the same thing) and Criticism of the War on Terror is its own article due to its size. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Not only is the War on Terror article already very large, but there are several books and countless academic papers, nevermind popular press, dedicated to criticism of the war on terror. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While undoubtedly a fork, there's no particular argument for POV as disagreement with the War on Terror is a notable subject on it's own. Over 60 footnotes on this page so no issue of WP:CITE, WP:GNG, or WP:V and reduces any reasonable suspicion of WP:OR. I would guess this AfD has a snowball's chance in hell of resulting in deletion, but that will be up to a closing admin. -Markeer 18:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible to evaluate this article for notability because it criticizes something that it never defines. What "war on terror" are we talking about. Specifically. When does this "war" begin and when does it end? Does it begin when Obama defined the concept out of existence? Back in the Clinton administration when the phrase first came into use? How the hell should I discover if it's notable without a definition?E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Sounds like your problem is with the War on Terror article, no? The subject is explained there pretty clearly. It's a big subject and the term is used in somewhat different ways, but there is an obviously coherent capital-W/capital-T subject that is the subject of countless books, articles, anthologies, etc. (likewise criticism of the same). Do you read the War on Terror article and come away with a sense that it's not talking about anything in particular? Until just now, this article linked to War on Terror using a {{main}} template at the very top, leaving little room for confusion as to what sense of "War on Terror" it's talking about. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My "problem" is that there was no such link. And that the wording in the lede he wording in the lede does not make this clear. Fuzzy definitions tend to produce coatracks. Is this article delimited by Sept 11 and the Obama 2013 speech? If that is the case, it needs to be specified at the top.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no such link - Here is the version of the article when you commented. Like I said, there's a {{main}} link right at the top. That out of the way, if you want it to be clearer, you're welcome to edit the article or bring it up on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much better as a bluelink. User friendly because it is far easier to spot. I suspect that it got visually occluded by the AFD template. Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:SKCRIT "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question" AusLondonder (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Any suggestions of merging should be raised on the article talkpages. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In general I oppose POVFORKs because they are so regularly used as a way to hide or wall off legitimate criticism of organizations and institutions. In this case, it is justified by the length of both articles. That said, it's a lousy article, dealing as it does with only certain kinds of criticism, it lacks, to give just one example, a section on the sizable and serious critiques of American strategy and tactics being made by military analysts on grounds of ineffectiveness. It might also be interesting to have something on the campaign-related upsurge of right wing (Trump) and left wing (Sanders) isolationist critiques of the "War." There is also an inappropriate POV tone to much of the writing, it is, for example, usual on such pages to discuss "Allegations of Hypocrisy..." Rather than assert Hypocrisy of the... in a subhead. That said, even highly biased WP:POVFORKs can pass notability. This topic does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative solution to this article's serious POV problem might be to rename it Progressive criticism of the War on Terror and have a separate POVFORK on Strategic criticism of the War on Terror.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the above. A legitimate sub-topic that easily passes WP:GNG. The aforementioned POV issues should be resolved on the talk page and through improvements to the article. There is no apparent reason for deletion.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor coming on this page can keep as per WP:SNOWBALL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I'm not sure of the nominator's intention here, but regardless, AfD is the wrong venue for redirect discussions. This redirect is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 21#Orangeish brown. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 16:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orangeish brown[edit]

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

Will combine Si Trew (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this up for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 21? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Second#SI_multiples. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gigasecond[edit]

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

Similar to Megasecond, which is also nominated for deletion, this "article" consists of nothing but a short definition (which could easily be covered by Wiktionary) and then a long list of ridiculous trivia. The maximum lifespan of a cat in gigaseconds, a common retirement age (where?) in gigaseconds, the duration of the Ottoman Empire in gigaseconds, etc. It's utterly pointless. Bazonka (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is one of many such compilations of arbitrary examples. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 metre. Andrew D. (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Second (unit) and merge any content that may be of use there. I see no need to delete. LjL (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Result here should be consistent with result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megasecond due to similarity of the issue and articles. ~Kvng (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Second#SI_multiples and merge any useful content to Time (Orders of magnitude). ~Kvng (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This is a plausible redirect, and some of the conversion factors (with eg other units of time, durations of orbits etc) may be useful. James500 (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect- A redirect to Second#SI_multiples is sensible, but the current content of the article is so terrible it should be deleted first to prevent any prospect of it being restored later. Reyk _YO! 08:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Second#SI multiples like the result of the AFD for megaseconds and add more prominent examples mentioned in the article to Time (Orders of magnitude). There is the gigasecond article on Units of Measurement Wiki, which I just expanded it from basically a definition page. Planet Star 07:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mitthulal Agrahari[edit]

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

Nothing to actually indicate notability DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable source regarding him except the one already present in the article. Bharatiya 29 07:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no sources apart from the death notice. They may all be in non-English sources or offline but until there is evidence of them we can't have the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Knochner[edit]

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

Delete: as stub of non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 05:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:ATHLETE. Two of this 22-year old's 43 appearances for SV Wacker Burghausen were in 3. Liga listed in WP:FPL as a fully-professional league. Article needs updating/expanding, not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played in 3. Liga a Fully Professional League now the player is 22 years and is actively playing through a lower leval after his club was relegated as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he appears to pass the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panhumanism[edit]

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

Original research that does not meet WP:GNG. giso6150 (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator — I agree that sources exist. giso6150 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing an awful lot of sources on panhumanism (including book-length). Could you elaborate on why you don't think it meets WP:GNG? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article as it is written does very little to support the notability of the topic. The lead and first two sections are devoid of citations other than a single article from panhumanism.org (from 2006) and an overly long quote from Carl Sagan. This could very well be a notable topic, but that it is not adequately demonstrated by the citations or this article's integration into the rest of the encyclopedia. giso6150 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Giso6150: Our guidelines for deletion are clear that an article is considered notable if sources exist, so what sources are currently used aren't consequential in terms of deletion. A search for such sources are part of the process to go through before nominating. If the sources/text are so bad that it would have to be completely scrapped and rewritten, there's precedent for deleting per WP:TNT, but it would really have to be unworkable. If your justification is notability, the presumption is you've already looked for sources and found that they don't exist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WorkRamp[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. giso6150 (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recently-started firm, sourced only to its own website and Linkedin profile. Nor are Highbeam and Google searches identifying any better sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious WP:Promo is obvious. Also: No notability whatsoever. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly a newly founded company with no further convincing sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BookNU[edit]

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

Subject clearly fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG as lacking significant, reliable, independent coverage. — Rebbing talk 04:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the initial PRODder. My search revealed insufficient reliable sources to meet the WP:ORG threshold. /wiae /tlk 05:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the subject has been covered by the No. 1 Photography Magazine in India, this signifies the subject's notability. Getcharstar (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sidetrack, but I'm skeptical that the website in question represents the pinnacle of photographic journalism anywhere, especially all of India. The article serving as our article's sole reference wasn't proofread (e.g., "It solves problem and at the same time, they’re doing their part for the society."), has no by-line, and, despite having nothing to do with photography, is tagged as a lens review. — Rebbing talk 08:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the same to them and they told me that by default all the posts are marked as 'lens review' but by mistake they forgot to remove it in this article. They seem to have corrected it now, however I got no reply for the proof-reading part. 13.76.37.239 (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's enough coverage about the topic in other languages. I was there 2 weeks back and saw an article about them in the paper. The founders were also covered individually in other articles and I could find a link for the same. (The founder has linked multiple press articles on his blog). In my opinion, this should be kept. 13.76.37.239 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cites a single source. I don't see anything when I click the thumbnails described above by 13.76.37.239, so I can't determine if they constitute significant coverage of the company. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, EBSCO, and using WP:INDT's Indian English language Newspapers search turned up nothing. No objection to draftify if the author needs time to add citations to reliable sources. Worldbruce (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce The images are accessible. It could be because you are on slow internet? I'm not sure, but anyways, either you can click on thumbnail and wait for it to load or else, middle click on thumbnail so that it open up in new tab and then wait for the image to load. He, the owner of blog, should have optimized the images' size. Anyway, please try this and fyi, those news clippings are in Hindi language and as I can read it, I can say that they are from very popular press houses. 13.76.37.239 (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at a couple of the newspaper extracts and they were about the founder of the company and don't mention BookNU at all. Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To clarify, searches won't fetch anything because most of it is covered in another language and mostly in other media form (eg: print/air). We could find only a single source in English but considering the fact that its from a very reputed Indian magazine, this article should be kept. 13.76.37.239 (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? /wiae /tlk 13:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The community at Wikipedia, i.e. everyone contributing/writing/being a part of Wikipedia. 13.76.37.239 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Sometimes new contributors aren't aware of the general "one person, one account rule". Apologies if my tone was curt. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial organization "they have donated a thousand books. This is A7 territory. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a newly founded company with no further convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Heights Woman's Club[edit]

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

No evidence of any significant notability. Most potentially notable aspect is the historical listing of the building but that is supported only by reference to the listing itself. The rest is largely self referenced with no independent robust and reliable sources. No doubt a very worthy and well intentioned organization, but not notable as defined by Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National Register of Historic Places. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being on the register of historic places does not, of itself, confer notability. It still requires robust, reliable and independent sources to establish notability. If being an historic place was

the claimed notability , then the article would need to revert to the original stub. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 06:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Entire Page. Until I am given specific details on what to change about this page I do not believe it should be deleted. --- Ellietycer _(Talk) 11:04, 20 February 2016
- To address the notability of the page, as of now the Houston Heights Woman's Club is not the most "notable" subject, but it is a growing club in the city of Houston which is one of the largest cities in the world. I personally have had many people ask me what the club was, which is why I chose it as a topic to edit. This topic may not be the most notable topic on all of wikipedia but it is CERTAINLY noteworthy enough that it should not be deleted. -- Ellietycer _(Talk) 11:17 , 20 February 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Another Believer. Perhaps the article could stand rewriting or reworking; I've not had more than a cursory glance at it, so I can't comment. But it should not, at any rate, be deleted. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 07:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Nominator apparently failed to do WP:BEFORE. Some quick web searching results in a news item that claims that "The club is the longest lasting continuous Heights institution" and links to a digitized book called The History of Houston Heights, which leads in turn to more sources, if a researcher wanted to dig through library archives for historical news coverage from 1912. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Properties on the National Register of Historic Places are considered notable, not because of the designation itself so much as that any listed property has been extensively researched and documented in its nomination form, complete with a list of references; the NRHP's threshold of acceptance is higher than Wikipedia's standard of notability. (The nomination form for this particular site doesn't appear to be online, but it can be requested from the National Park Service.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheCatalyst31. However, this article is an example of a problem/ambiguity that afflicts lots of articles related to the National Register of Historic Places: the distinction between a building (i.e. "historic place") and the institution that occupies or formerly occupied the building, especially when the building and institution share the same name. Even if, hypothetically, the club institution weren't notable the building still would be - in which case the article would need to focus on the building with a secondary discussion of the club. In this case, other commenters have made a case that the club institution is notable, so it's not editorially unreasonable to cover both institution and building in the same article. If the club were to vacate the building, and especially if another occupant were to move into the building, the two topics very likely would need to be teased apart somehow. — Ipoellet (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I could not have said this better myself. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban Mascareña[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Statement that the player has made a professional debut though this is not supported by the source supplied which notes him as an unused substitute. Fenix down (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable yet, per WP:CBALL. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abated Mass of Flesh[edit]

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

Article about a band, sourced entirely to blogs, Facebook posts and a simple "band directory" page, of a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. They're an unsigned band whose EPs and album were all released independently, so the number of releases here doesn't get them over NMUSIC #5 (which requires a record label) -- but no other claim of notability is even attempted here. A band like this could still get a Wikipedia article if enough reliable source coverage were present to satisfy WP:GNG, but they're not entitled to one just because they exist, and the sourcing here doesn't cut it in the slightest. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, looking back on it, its not that good. Unfortunately the band just isn't big enough to have huge sites talk about them. Sorry for creating it and wasting your time, guys Impendingdoom240 (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable, searches at Blabbermouth, Kerrang! and Terrorizer found nothing better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Local[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This article is almost entirely a copy of the list of routes provided by Metro, it relies on one source and has a lot of material that is both unsourced and not notable. On top of that, this article is a massive chore to keep up to date and requires that someone inputs all the route changes. Also it's not a great guide for anyone planning to take a trip on a bus in Los Angeles (edited) Readers still need to head to Metro's website for timetable information and to see a map of where exactly the route operates. I recommend we delete this article and similar lists across Wikipedia. --RickyCourtney (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major public transit system and one of the largest bus systems in the world. Similar to MTA Regional Bus Operations. How not being able to take a bus in King County, Washington using a bus system in Los Angeles is a reason to delete this article is beyond me. The nom seems confused over even what this topic is.--Oakshade (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am positive he meant the King County Metro Local. I've also notified him of the error on his talk page. Here's my evidence from WikiProject Buses recent activity section:

Articles for deletion

21 Feb 2016 – Metro Local (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by RickyCourtney (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
21 Feb 2016 – List of King County Metro bus routes (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by RickyCourtney (t · c); see discussion (4 participants) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJH2018 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority without prejudice against recreation. I am unable to find enough significant coverage in reliable sources of this specific Metro service to satisfy WP:GNG at this point, but as Oakshade notes, similar articles have reached that threshold. @RickyCourtney's mention of King County in the nomination appears to be a typo. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 17:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated both the King County and Los Angeles county articles. I've edited my typo. Both articles have the same issues as both are huge listings of bus routes that rely on one source. The Metro Local article has the added downside that there are listings of the base where the line is Operated that is both unsourced and seemingly impossible to verify. The information on this page that would need to be merged... already exits on the LACMTA main article. Adding a listing of routes would make an already long article even longer. --RickyCourtney (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable transportation authority, and if it's not kept, the material should at least be merged to a more notable topic, namely LACMTA buses. epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is just about as notable as one gets for a metropolitan transit agency, and yet merging would be a poor choice per WP:SUMMARY, as it would overwhelm the rest of the article and the agency's other services. One person not wanting to work on the maintenance is no reason for deletion. oknazevad (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Also, it can be expanded upon to include more than one source. Class455fan1 (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 00:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of King County Metro bus routes[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This article is almost entirely a copy of the list of routes provided by King County Metro. On top of that, this article is a massive chore to keep up to date and requires that someone inputs all the route changes every 6 months. Also it's not a great guide for anyone planning to take a trip on a bus in King County. Readers still need to head to Metro's website for timetable information and to see a map of where exactly the route operates. I recommend we delete this article and similar lists across Wikipedia. --RickyCourtney (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are 43 articles listed at Category:Lists of bus routes in the United States, not counting subcategories. I'd rather see the proposal to "delete this article and similar lists" discussed at the appropriate project to demonstrate consensus, or lack thereof. The argument that it's hard to keep such articles current is not compelling and could be easily refuted by active editors. – Brianhe (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'd like to see some discussion about the similar lists over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses (which is kind of dead), especially given that one of these lists (the SF one) is a FL. There is merit to keeping a list of routes and their termini/destinations, given that they (normally) have permanence and are notable in their own right sometimes (see the MTA routes in Baltimore; some bus routes in Seattle could warrant that kind of treatment). Sounder Bruce 03:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got the idea for deletion after reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TriMet bus routes. Just because there are other "List of [Agency] bus routes" doesn't mean that they should all exist. Anyway... I could go either way here. I was just hoping for some census before making the changes involved with the massive upcoming March service change. --RickyCourtney (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as appropriate to King County Metro. Fails WP:LISTN. I found no significant coverage of this set of bus routes. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't valid in this case. Some bus route lists may be notable, some may not. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 21:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's quite normal for Wikipedia to have coverage of this sort. See Bus routes in London, list of Toronto Transit Commission bus routes, Green Line Coaches, etc. Blythwood (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not violate NOTTRAVEL, though "guide" parts may need to be cut down. Lists of bus routes are not non-notable. epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sababa - Northern Souls[edit]

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

Disputed Prod. Nomination was because Very few independent reliable sources available. Yes the piece exists but it is highly debatable it meets WP:GNG. The creator of the article disputed Prod saying that The newspaper articles constitute independent sources, and don't express any promotional material or material written by the subject of the page. Blethering Scot 21:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article are no where near strong enough to meet WP:GNG. I stand by my original statement, just because this exists does not make it notable. Doing google searches still do not find many more reliable sources in the mainstream press.Blethering Scot 21:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really no need to embolden your deletion rationale. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bold parts are the rational and the users objections to the prod. Why there may be no need, equally there is no harm.Blethering Scot 21:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that, even though there aren't very many sources for different information from impartial sources, the show has plans to expand to larger venues and possibly tour, so there will be more and more available. It makes sense to leave the article as-is and allow it to expand as the topic does. Rather than delete it, only to have to recreate it at a later date. fopnor 21:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fopnor (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no proper independant newspaper articles about the piece, despite author claiming it. Local news site, which looks like PR article and notes in tourist site. Unfortunately, not notable enough. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. The objections made by Blethering Scot in Tel Aviv & Arthistorian1977l show very limited understanding of the British Press - A the end of this I have listed some of the many outlets who have runindependent editorials based on independent journalists own intitiative and professional interest in this very important production. This production has excited such wide spread and supportive comment by independent journalists because it is the first entirely positive Arts event to promote cohesion and positive links between Britain's Jewish & Muslim Communities. Blethering Scot sahould understand the vital importance of such initiatives at a time when there is so much bloodshed between the communities in his own country of Israel. These are the current independent news outlets that have featured stories about "Sababa-Northern Souls": “The Manchester Evening News” ran a half page article in print and online. Plus other large features were run in “The Macclesfield Express”, “The Chorley Guardian”, “Visit Manchester”, “The Church of England News”, ”Community Index” , “Asian Image”, “Jewish Telegraph”, “Jewish Chronicle”, “City Muslims” “The List” Street life – South Manchester”, “Prestwich & Whitefield Guide”. There were also extensive interviews on Radio Manchester on 4 separate shows. Plus half an hour on Chorley FM and big feature on “That’s Manchester TV News” plus International News Channels were supplied by video & pictures on the Opening night by “Daily Jang” reporters. Does Arthistorian1977 recognise at least some of these news outlets? AFter all they have circulations in excess of millions in the North West! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.62.37 (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, none of those sources show enough strength that this article meets GNG. If this was a notable production I would be expecting reviews from sources such as, The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph all of which do regional reviews, none exist for this production. I mean the critical reception section opens with The original performance was reviewed by Quietmandave, and was very well received. What kind of authority on theatre is Quietmandave? Whilst the production should be praised for the issues it raises, thats not enough to make it widely notable. This article should be deleted.Blethering Scot 20:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the play seems to be an interesting concept, it does not appear to meet WP:GNG criteria (I could not find criteria specifically for the theater). Perhaps the article is early and the author should userfy it until it achieves notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~DO NOT DELETE~~. The main objection seems to be again the variety of Media comment. BlethringScot ("Blether" a Scots word defined as "talk long-windedly without making very much sense"!) suggests that papers with an International presence like “The Guardian” should have run articles on the important original new production: “Sababa- Northern Souls”. However, this is naïve and fails to understand the nature of the international Press. He does not appreciate that newspapers at that international level only write about established topics of news. What is failed to grasp is that the story of Sababa is now firmly established in major regional papers and in distinguished journals of record (175 years of publishing) like “The Jewish Chronicle” This in itself makes the subject of Sababa worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

Also, as an immediately topical reference point, Wikipedia has a reputation and duty to reflect the zeitgeist - matters that are important to people now – it is obvious from the long list of publications and news outlets that have reported on Sababa that the production is of great importance to them – especially at a time of terrible strife and blood letting in Israel & Palestine and the recent events of anti-semitism in France. By keeping this article Wikipedia is providing valuable reference to an initiative that is of great importance to the millions of readers of the newspapers, radio and journals that have been enumerated as publishers of articles about the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.62.37 (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from making personal attacks and focus on content.Blethering Scot 21:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably I am bad in searching, but I didn't find any mention of the play in Jewish Chronicle. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthistorian1977: BEFORE finds that it was actually Jewish Telegraph Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do No Delete Arthiistorian1977 - Sadly not everything is online - if being online is your criteria for acceptable sources then you have a severely limited outlook for quality information.You are in Israel - The Jewish Chronicle should be available in a library.It makes more sense for you to be fully committed and rigorous in sourcing the references by looking at a hard copy then simply whining about not having an easy Google search! Remember this Musical excites considerable positive support where it matters- amongst British people.It is also the first serious attempt to bring Jews & Muslims together in Theatre terms.So it is important that your objections are serious and considered.You have presumably seen the online references in The Jewish Telegraph - but oddly fail to refer to them.Let's have more support for Peace and togetherness less negative and unhelpful destructive bleating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.131 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE this is NOT a film, but is rather a stage play written of in Evening News and Asian Image among others. So we thus modify our searches accordingly and look to Wikipedia:Notability (events).

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

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

That said, Delete as while topic of this new play has a great deal of local coverage, it really makes no splash outside of Manchester. If there is ever an article on playwrite Nakib Narat, this can certainly be spoken of and sourced therein. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juliann Alexander[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, with no credible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no indication of reliable source coverage -- all of the "sourcing" here is to a blogging platform that "empowers artists by letting them showcase their music to real hip hop fans", and none of it is to real media that are genuinely independent of his own PR machine. A musician does not gain an automatic entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because his own self-published presence on PR platforms verifies that he exists -- he earns one by being the subject of coverage in independent reliable media sources. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if his notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently better satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above; if new references are found I can change my mind if pinged.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Cardona[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I'm unable to locate any coverage in reliable secondary sources (WP:GNG) or anything to indicate subject-specific notability criteria are met (WP:MUSICBIO). Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 20:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This could also be PROD'd for being a BLP without any references. Youtube "star", not notable, and no coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better solid independent notability for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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✈ 00:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KZCZ-LD[edit]

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

KZCZ-LD is apparently a small television station that meets neither WP:CORP or WP:BROADCAST. The references are primary except for RabbitEars which, as a comprehensive database, establishes only that it exists, not that it is notable. I can find no evidence of notability in reliable third party publications, nor original programming output. BC108 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. It airs four networks and is FCC-licensed. Alot of these DTV America stations exist only to carry the networks others wouldn't or as spectrum license bait that will provide more of a public service sending out mobile signals than they are now airing little-remembered sitcoms, Court TV orphans and 70's action offal, but there's no need for more than the basics here. Nate • (chatter) 20:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:BCASTOUTCOMES are you referring to? BC108 (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." Station identification meets the merest mention of 'portion of their programming schedule in their own studios', and they broadcast over the air. Nate • (chatter) 19:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logos, continuity etc. cannot be considered "programming" and clearly are not what is meant as programming in that sentence. According to the referenced Rabbit Ears listing (and contrary to the article content) the station isn't on air so there won't even be any Station identification anyway. BC108 (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nate - All US stations are kept per WP:NMEDIA & WP:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media. –Davey2010^Talk 01:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fucksake I give up .... The link Nate posted is what I was trying to refer too, I dunno why it's not linking properly!, –Davey2010^Talk 02:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:BCASTOUTCOMES does not say that all US stations are kept - far from it; it cites some that are generally notable; it cites others that are not generally notable and others that should redirect. BC108 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually that refers to shopping/religious translators that are usually redirected to their parent network's article from my experience. The few stations that are deleted are usually unambiguous 'infomercial pipe' stations or those who barely stay on the air using public domain films and series and are just on as spectrum/larger broadcaster bait. This has four originated networks, and DTV America has made some noise about eventually adding some local shows to their stations, but those plans haven't panned out yet; it's impossible to have a four-pronged RD to the four network articles and also keep this station's info in them. Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as convincing enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Transformers: Armada characters#Mini-Cons. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 00:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Runway (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List_of_Transformers:_Armada_characters#Mini-Cons, minor cartoon character. Mathewignash (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Transformers: Armada characters#Mini-Cons. Already mentioned there. Detailed in-universe biographies for non-notable characters belong on Wikia. Google Books results look like licensed material. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Transformers: Cybertron characters#Recon Mini-Con Team. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 10:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safeguard (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List_of_Transformers:_Cybertron_characters, some minor notability. Mathewignash (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Transformers: Cybertron characters. Already mentioned there. Detailed in-universe biographies for non-notable characters belong on Wikia. Again, the Google Books results look like licensed material. Also a few game guides, which I'm pretty sure can't show notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request on their talk page. JohnCD (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Saikaley[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The strongest claim of notability here is having won a literary award that isn't notable enough to make its winners encyclopedically notable just for winning it, and the only source in the entire article is the presence of her name in a list of the award winners on the award's own website (thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.) A writer needs to be the subject of media coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article, and does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because she exists or because she won a non-notable minor award -- but on a Google search, I've found only one source that would count for anything toward getting her over WP:GNG, and one source isn't enough to pass GNG by itself. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her sourceability improves. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, and await the nest bookfrom this very early career writer. My searches found nothing beyond what is already on the page, to me she seems to still be on the WP:TOOSOON side of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Transformers characters#Mini-Cassettes. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 00:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slugfest (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List_of_The_Transformers_characters#Mini-Cassettes, some sources. Mathewignash (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Transformers characters#Mini-Cassettes, where he's mentioned. I see a few price guides and such on Google Books, but there doesn't seem to be any in-depth coverage from independent sources. I'm skeptical that a blurb on X-Entertainment can show notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Transformers: Age of Extinction#Dinobots. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 00:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scorn (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Tagged as of questionable notability since 2014. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This belongs on a Transfomers-Wiki and not on Wikipedia. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformers: Age of Extinction#Dinobots, where he's mentioned. While this character is mentioned in a few places, such as here and here, it's not enough to show notability independent of the film. I don't see any relevant hits on Google Books, but it's tough to say with such a generic name. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Transformers characters#Mini-Cassettes. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 00:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overkill (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List_of_The_Transformers_characters#Mini-Cassettes. Mathewignash (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Transformers characters#Mini-Cassettes. Same problems as the others: search results are mostly limited to fan sites, Wikipedia mirrors, and price guides. Even if X-Entertainment is reliable, the blurb there is not enough to show notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Machado[edit]

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

Does not meet notability. The sources are neither reliable nor do they have significant coverage. giso6150 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage. There's also no indication of notability. Winning "many tournaments as a white belt" is the opposite of competing at the highest level. Notability can't be inherited from family members.Mdtemp (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I also think this article's facts are likely wrong. It says he was born in 1978 and "dominated the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu circuit, winning every major competitive title from 1982 to 1990' which would mean he started dominating the BJJ world at the age of 4 or so. The article also claims "In 1990 he also graduated from Rio Federal College receiving a degree in Environmental Farming" at which team he'd have been 12. Finally, there's an unsupported claim he was the Pan-Am sambo champion in 1993 and 1994 as well as movie roles in 1994 and 1995. That's a lot of accomplishments for someone by the age of 16. I found a number of people named John Machado and I suspect this article combines facts from several of them. Papaursa (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, discounting the sockpuppetry, which in any case do not discuss whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Tarunc[edit]

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

Trivial to no coverage in multiple reliable sources for this Armenian person who has held some five career titles, failing WP:BASIC. Also I don't see the anything in the article that would suggest this person fitting any of the criteria in WP:JOURNALIST, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:NACTOR. Think this should be deleted —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps simply altogether and not redirect to the Full House (Armenian TV series) article as her connections with that are also questionable, this is still overall questionable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 23:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Davit077 talk 11:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harut111 talk 15:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The famous armenian singer--El-ßäbrega (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participants: This is not a vote, and just stating "keep" without further argument can and will be disregarded by closing administrators. Mz7 (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Davit077 is a Confirmed sock of Harut111. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harut111.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

El-ßäbrega has now also been blocked as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Even if her role in Full House (Armenian TV series) could be considered significant (which is doubtful), the subject still fails WP:NACTOR, as that guideline requires significant roles in multiple notable shows. It's simply WP:TOOSOON for an article at this time. Mz7 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT, sources provided are not reliable. After performing Google searches, it seems the only sources that cover her outside of her X-Factor performance (see WP:1E) found are social media and tabloids. Chrisw80 (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as currently questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per SwisterTwister although I can change my view if new sources are found, as well as clarification about her numerous names.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Apart from a bunch of tabloids and celebrity gossip, there doesn't appear to be enough coverage to assert that this person has met the guidelines for WP:GNG, and it looks pretty clear that this person does not meet WP:ENT. I did find some sources talking about her modeling (NSFW Warning: suggestive photos - [2], [3], [4], and [5]), but she does not look to meet WP:PORNBIO (for those who consider her modeling to be pornography). I don't believe that WP:1E applies in this particular case, but I agree that notability is not sufficient given my research and findings. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, noting that the nominator has subsequently !voted 'keep'. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Barkan[edit]

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

The article is quite old, over a decade. But, since the creation the photographer hasn't been notable for anything, but leading a decade old campaign against anorectic models and is known only for this. As comparing to other artists, I didn't find any information about exhibitions, publications, books, etc. Such information does not exist in either Hebrew or English. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He gave a TED talk on the subject in 2015 and his organization still exists. The article is well-sourced and addresses an important topic. I see no reason to delete it. In fact, being notable for one thing is probably true for most people who have Wikipedia articles.Geewhiz (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the article is the article about him as a photographer. For the past 10 year, there are no any additional information about him as a photographer and no information about him out of anti-anorexia context. May be it should be worth merging this into Anorexia article. When we talk about one time event in this case, I don't think that this degree of significance makes him notable enough. Cheers Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is biographical. Just because someone is a photographer by training doesn't mean he cannot be notable for something else, and fighting against misrepresentations of the body is certainly connected to fashion photography. He regularly lectures on the topic. Geewhiz (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sustained indepth coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources to pass GNG, not just in the article, but also if you search (not just on Google--try HighBeam), there is coverage over time about him, especially in the Jerusalem Post. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reading the additional links, I would probably re-iterate my nomination for deletion replacing his definition as photographer to model agent and activist, which is his proper role. As Geewhiz said - "Just because someone is a photographer by training doesn't mean he cannot be notable for something else". Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I looked on Highbeam too, and I found plenty of sources as spotted by Megalibrarygirl. Adi Barkan is regularly approached for quotes and soundbites on the subject. In a 2015 Christian Science Monitor article, "France's Ban on Super-Thin Models: Who Will It Really Help?", Barkan is cited as the person responsible for spearheading the Israeli law, and has his views discussed at length by the writer. The 19 articles in Highbeam run from 2004 to 2015, demonstrating ongoing coverage. There is a 2012 article on him here, and a glance through Google News hits for his name shows pieces in a range of languages (international coverage!) and in a good range of publications, not just the trash press. I also looked on Google Books, and found more multiple-language sources. I really don't see any convincing reason for deletion of this article. Mabalu (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I ran a search on Proquest news, it turned up serious coverage of him. Much in in the context of Israeli law on anexoric models, but many of these articles include significant discussion of his career, some are profiles of t=him Also saw articles in French German and in British and Canadian papers, often using the example of how his activism promoted the new Israeli law, to promote similar laws. Typical example of such, from The Sun, (London): " Israel was the first, banning models with a BMI of under 18.5 -- 0.3 less than supermodel Bar Refaeli's BMI -- in March 2012. Spain and Italy have imposed similar regulations.

Adi Barkan, an Israeli fashion photographer, model agent and chairman of Simply You -- a group that aims to raise awareness of the effect of the fashion industry on body image -- said: "Passing the law in Israel reinforced that eating disorders are a social disease, a social epidemic. "We offer France our stamp of approval, which will enable designers to show their clients they care about them, not only in the cash register."" E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I added a few sources, and a bit on his career, form Proquest, because Nom's complaint on tis aspect was valid. I'm done for now, but Here:[6] is a search on Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper that began publishing articles in English online a few years ago. He is credited as having helped write the Israeli legislation on this topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, User:Megalibrarygirl says this above; she's right.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I edited the article to clearly show that he started as a photographer and turned to be model agent and activist. I've also removed statement that he is regarded as one of the "leading Israeli fashion photographer", since there is no any confirmation to this in reliable sources. At this point I re-iterate that I am for keep now. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Advocate article I linked called him "Israel's No. 1 fashion photographer." More recent articles describe a hiatus from fashion photography to concentrate on anexoria. He's not young, more sources probably can be found in older archives in Hebrew and French, since he seems to have worked for some years in Paris.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send My Gift[edit]

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

The page is the recreation of Send my gift and entirely depended on the sources about Bollywood actor Hrithik Roshan who was present at the launch but don't have any claim of his ownership or investment. GSS (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes it is a newly founded company and in the article there is no where mentioned that Hrithik Roshan is the owner of send my gift he is just the Brand ambassador of this newly started company. Amitbairagi talk 03:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Mr RD 08:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Newly founded company with some coverage but simply still not enough for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As no reliable sources have been provided which cover the subject significantly have been presented during this discussion, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Scott[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage to be found about this guy. He only worked for The Asylum, and all sources currently listed are primary sources and Facebook pages. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 03:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for WP:CREATIVE with no convincing signs of a better article. Notifying the only still active AfDers Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Johnpacklambert. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep four refs from Dread Central which is a reliable source for horror film, he is quite a prolific contributor to the industry and deserves a small article.Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break it to you, but reliable sources that only pass mention an actor's name in relation to a film doesn't count as significant coverage. Always remember, kids: Notability is not inherited. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 2 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) 01:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Saʿadeh Jallad[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. giso6150 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another classic example of an article simply listed with some information and sources but no actual convincing signs of better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced biography that doesn't make a claim that its subject has done anything notable. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Mulholland[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG giso6150 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although the current article seems amply sourced and informative, this is still questionably solidly notable for the applicable notability. WP:TNT at best, SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I didn't evaluate the offline sources, but the New York Observer is one instance of significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source.

WP:BASIC advises us that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Sources that are mainly about his nightclubs, but contain snippets of information about him, in outlets from Women's Wear Daily through The New York Times, such as: [7], [8], [9]†, [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]†, [15] can be treated, in combination, as a second in-depth, independent, reliable, secondary source, thereby satisfying the notability guideline. Worldbruce (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

†(already cited in article)

Delete. Nothing here is even significant enough to be worth counting at all--they are all of them minor mentions. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether being the 5th most successful nightclub promoter in New York is a significant accomplishment, but I wouldn't ordinarily call 1,800 words a minor mention. Granted, it's in a tabloid. Pinging AfC accepter/rescuer - a concerned editor who contributed as much as the original author did to the article. Interested in what their thinking was and is. Worldbruce (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, naturally since I accepted it in the first place I will !vote to keep it. I added five more references. Being "successful" doesn't necessarily mean notable in the Wikipedia sense, but this fellow has been written about many times in many newspapers and magazines. Articles with a sentence or two are often useful if they substantiate specific facts. I agree with Worldbruce that short sections in a large number of references should add up to notability, provided that when combined they contain a variety of information about the subject. Sometimes there are many short news reports which just all mention the same two or three facts, but that's not the case here. And there's considerably more to be found than there was about a couple of academia-related articles which were accepted recently.—Anne Delong (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Articles and content must be WP:V. Sources in different languages are often difficult to find but without them then we must fall back on WP:BURDEN principals and use what's available to us at this point in time. Comparing the athlete to others is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Mkdw ^talk 03:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter Singer[edit]

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

Lacks the significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Posters, IMDB, youtube clips, etc. do not provide any significant independent coverage. He also fails to meet the notability standards for kickboxers (WP:KICK) and actors (WP:NACTOR). Mdtemp (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Re: notability standard for kickboxers: Singer fought at the K-1 World Grand Prix, Las Vegas 2001, he also won the International Muay Thai Federation (IMF) World Cruiserweight Champion 1991 (IMF is the forerunner of WMC, which was only created in 1995 per Thailand government decree.) Wolfgaenger (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Re: notability standard for actors: The film Jail Caesar, in which Singer played a lead role, won 1st place at the Berlin Independent Film Festival in 2013, which is one of the world's leading film festivals. Wolfgaenger (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was previously deleted at AfD in 2010 under the name Günter Singer. Both articles were created by the same editor, Wolfgaenger, however this version of the article focuses on a different aspect of Singer's career that appears to have emerged since the last AfD. I'm including the information from the earlier version of the article for any incoming editors, if they need to compare this against the prior version since the last AfD approaches this from such a different angle that it initially appears to be a separate person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content

Günter Singer (born June 7th, 1967, Mürzzuschlag, Austria) is a Chief executive officer (CEO) in the private military industry. Growing up in Veitsch, Steiermark, Austria, Singer was conscripted into the Military of his homeland Austria for his first taste of military life, in 1987. After various following careers as special forces operative in the French Foreign Legion, a professional kickboxer, bodyguard, and private military contractor, Singer became CEO of US Operations for Asgaard - German Security Group in 2010, establishing the company's US Office. Later the same year Singer and Gregory Strom formed Triton Armor Group, a private military company specializing in the conflict zones on the African continent. The company's headquarters and training facilities are located in Los Angeles, California.

Thank you Tokyogirl79, yes, it is the same person. I had not included that information this time because as was stated, the other aspects of his career are not something that can be easily verified online. His Kick/Thaiboxing and Filmmaker career are more clearly established, traceable online, and more relevant to the kind of information that is housed on Wikipedia.Wolfgaenger (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the distinctions were not clear:1) The International Muay Thai Federation (IMF) was the forerunner of The World Muay Thai Council (WMC). WMC was created in 1995 per Thailand government decree. The WMC is the current recognized Muay Thai federation; therefore Gunter Singer did indeed win a title of the applicable notability guidelines. As stated, he won the World Cruiserweight Championship in 1991 within the forerunning federation. 2) The film Jail Caesar won 1st place at the Berlin Independent Film Festival in 2013. Gunter Singer played a lead role in this film. Here again he has met applicable notability guidelines.

In both of these instances he has met standard. I would need further clarification as why this is not clear.Wolfgaenger (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found no reliable sources that list the IMF as the lineal predecessor of the WMC and there's no independent supporting evidence for the claim of him being a world champion sufficient to meet WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Re: Papaursa: Thank you for your effort. WMC was the Thai governmental effort to get all federations under one roof, since it is their national sport. The IMF was the only accepted Muay Thai federation before that, that was created with particular international intent in 1989. IMF and all other main national Muay Thai federations were fused into the WMC, in order to make it officially international and give the government a chance to control it. Don't forget, in the 80's and early 90's most westerners fighting in Thailand got knocked out. So, the term international didn't mean much until a bit later. Rob Kaman (NL), Ramon Dekkers (NL), Peter Cunningham (US/CAN), Benny Urquidez (US), John Wayne Parr (AUS), were a few of their champs from the top of my head. In Rob Kaman's own words, the IMF belt was his most prestigious. Also, all this is mostly before the internet so searches will not necessarily bring up much, same with Singer's title fight from 1991. The fight was in Paris, September 27th 1991, but all I could find was an Austrian newspaper article, in German. Thanks everyone for taking the time! Wolfgaenger (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Anthony[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON reddogsix (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Page needs expansion but subject is covered in reliable sources [16]. Meatsgains (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaley Scott[edit]

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

This is a non-notable actress on every level. I can't find any significant coverage of her. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 03:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signs of better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject is better known as a singer songwriter than as an actress and has a new album coming out this year. See [17] and [18] I think she passes WP:BASIC. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete it's WP:TOOSOON. I sometimes end a comment with TOO:SOON even though it looks unlikely to me because the fan who wrote the article is so enthusiastic that I want to be kind. Here , it seems clear that this may actually be a notable artist just launching a career. Problem is, RS coverage so far is from the hometown paper. news search: [19].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently does not pass either WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but not even convinced about that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough, and lack of independent verifiable sources. Cindlevet (talk) 17:04, 2 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 Bappy Chowdhury. Sandstein 21:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo 2013[edit]

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

This film has been tagged for notability ever since created 3 years ago. Sole cited source is merely a credits listing. Searches of the usual types, including by Bengali script name, found:

one announcement that shooting had begun [20] (in Bengali)
a press release for the opening [21] (in Bengali) (reprinted by various outlets)
passing mentions that so-and-so had been in it: [22] (in Bengali), [23], and [24] (a Bengali version of this story appeared in many other papers, e.g. [25] and [26])
lists of all movies made in 2013
TV listings

What was not found was any review, analysis, or significant detail in independent, reliable, secondary sources. As such it does not meet WP:GNG. Nor does it meet any criterion of WP:NF. Worldbruce (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to Bappy Chowdhury due to the film's questionable notability. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Userfy If this is a produced movie that's been released, even on the 50 screens mentioned, there should be sources. But this stub does not show any meaning it's not ready for Wikipedia. Redirect per Bappy Chowdhury above, or else just userfy the article until it's creator can improve it. -Markeer 18:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm satisfied with redirect to Bappy Chowdhury as consensus. Bdboy300 and later the similarly named Bdboy500 between them created this article and articles on Bappy Chowdhury and the production company Jaaz Multimedia. Until their creating spree petered out in early 2014, they seemed to be on track to create an article on every film ever made by either and on everyone who ever appeared with Bappy. Some of their topics were notable, some were not. I doubt if either is able or likely to improve this, but I have no objection to it being split off into a stand alone article again at some future date, if sources eventually turn up to demonstrate notability. Worldbruce (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After disregarding the massive wave of sockpuppets, there's not much left in the way of genuine support for this article. Sandstein 21:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood Domestic Violence[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)

WP:NOTESSAY Adam9007 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge We already have Effects of domestic violence on children and Child abuse. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a duplicate concept about which we have already written about. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems this article Childhood Domestic Violence has a detailed report on the historical and current status of childhood domestic violence. The article is solely directed at providing verifiable and reliable information concerning the experience of a child who is present in a home where domestic violence takes place. It does not report on other related but separate topics, such as physical child abuse or corporal punishment, both of which are discussed in different articles, including Effects of domestic violence on children. It also does not report on domestic violence as a focus subject. It aims to review childhood domestic violence as separate from other adverse childhood experiences, as it is so viewed in the ACE Study (1995-1997) conducted by Kaiser Permanente health maintenance organization (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDV), and other relevant research. The nominated article also provides links to other subjects, such as physical child abuse, under See Also, recognizing the subjects are related, but separate from the intention of the nominated article.

The nominated article also uses authoritative secondary sources that provide a much greater breadth of data on the subject and its worldwide occurrence than appear elsewhere in Wikipedia, with peer-reviewed reports that are as recent as 2015. Critical studies are cited that do not appear elsewhere, as well. Further, the nominated article addresses remedial approaches discusses in the research literature, which are not discussed in the Effects of domestic violence on children article. All of this would make a merge with any other article erroneous, difficult and in the end, unwieldy.LoneProtector 21:38, 18 February 2016(UTC)

"It also does not report on domestic violence as a focus subject." What? Yes it does? And if the only thing not at the other article are "remedial approaches" (which there actually are) then merge would be very much merited. And you're the creator of the article, right? You forgot your password? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked into a whole lot of the quoted articles and I believe that this deals more with the mental effect childhood domestic violence has on children. The articles that were proposed to be merged with this one all dealt more on the physical level. I believe that there is a distinct difference and it would make a merged page more cumbersome and possibly disjointed. Deleting the page would possibly be a dis-service. I vote this page be kept as is. Perhaps expanded a bit more to reflect the mental effects would be a good idea. Equine-man (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced article. About notable subject. BabbaQ (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was surprised to receive a deletion notice at this stage, since last week it only indicated that the article seemed to have original research and personal expression and these needed to be improved. This was done, and there is now third-party secondary source material provided for every part of the current article. Due diligence was used to ensure that all material was factual and that the article was fully neutral in its perspective. No mention was made about other articles or issue taken with the nominated article on the grounds of duplication at that time. The other article doesn't fully cover how the impact of a child being around domestic violence affects them throughout their entire adult life. For all of these reasons, it would be appropriate to reconsider and remove the Deletion notice from the nominated article and merge the older article with this more comprehensive one. WMCproofreader (talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - if this is primarily about the psychological angle, that doesn't mean it's not the same subject as the pre-existing Effects of domestic violence on children. It just means it's other info on the same topic, which could if it's that much different as to not duplicate, be merged and included there. SatansFeminist (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)*[reply]

Keep - This defines the issue as a noun instead of some broad general description, this newer article is better sourced and after further review, I feel that the Effects_of_domestic_violence_on_children article should be merged into this one. User:JennyEditorFL (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Jennyeditorfl has made no edits outside of this page, as have others. Please refer to this ongoing SPI. GAB^Hello! 21:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article seems to be a more comprehensive coverage of the overall subject. I believe it has substantially more information on the impact this has on a person as a whole for the course of their entire life, not just their childhood. User:Ctm1013 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a subject that requires careful sourcing. It isn't a casual subject. This article treats the information with a lot of care, more than the other article. A photo of a child is included in the other article, also, that is disturbing and which affects neutral POV, I think. User:PrinceHal (talk)
Comment This AfD is being massively SPA'd. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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