Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 February 28 February >

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. MBisanz talk 23:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Myers (ice hockey)[edit]

Joseph Myers (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless I'm missing something obvious here. He's played numerous games at the top professional league in the UK, so surely meets WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Sionk (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NHOCKEY/LA considers the EIHL a "Lower-level leagues" which means that in order to pass NHOCKEY he would have to have "Achieved preeminent honors" which he has not. Joeykai (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if he's played that many games as a goaltender he meets the criteria all the same. Sionk (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, he doesn't. Have you read the criteria? Joeykai (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a rhetorical question. "Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender)... in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues" Sionk (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already addressed this, but look at WP:NHOCKEY/LA. The EIHL is not a top-level minor league, it is a lower-lever minor league, which means the only way he can pass NHOCKEY with his EIHL career is if he passed criteria #4 of NHOCKEY which is "achieved preeminent honors" and he has not done this. Joeykai (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only thing that he can be assessed on as an ice hockey player is on criterion #4 and he falls well short of the requirements. The current conversation about his eligibility under criterion #3 is moot as he has never played in a league of that caliber at this point in time. Deadman137 (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Mdtemp (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject of the article fails WP:NHOCKEY and the only source is not an independent one. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 05:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 19:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Hunter[edit]

Arnold Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable person. Notability hasn't been demonstrated with sources and no claim of significance in the article. Moreover edit history shows that page seems to be only used for attempts to defame the person, which is a serious BLP issue. Tvx1 23:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING make it that your arguments don't make a valid rationale to keep the article. In fact, you state "keep all or delete all" in your reasoning which means it is not simply a keep !vote. If you want to add those other articles to the nomination, be my guest. Having checked them, I cannot find any evidence that justifies them having a dedicated article. Tvx1 16:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you hadn't noticed, I'm in favor of keeping this kind of articles. Besides, Arnold Hunter is not an unremarkable person. His appointment was even discussed before the Olympiacos vs Anderlecht game took place. [1] Karma-AH (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no discussion whatsoever. This is just a list of referees appointed for all the matches. Such list are published ahead of every single match in the entire world. That doesn't many that every referee merits a wikipedia article. Tvx1 23:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep—reliable independent sources online, just looking up "Arnold Hunter" reveals a lot of sources. By the way, we shouldn't be basing deletion off of what people use the page for, see WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. Appable (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All from one country dealing with just one match he led. While you think that is enough, according to our notability guidelines it isn't. Tvx1 19:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite the relevant notability guideline for referees? I actually couldn't find that, so I'm going off WP:GNG because there are multiple independent reliable sources (sources from the same country are almost always considered independent). Appable (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per request, a Northern Irish source, Irish source and a French source, respectively. [2] [3] [4] Karma-AH (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, all just about one of many matches he officiated during his career. See WP:1E. Just how important is this match even in the history of the sport? What's more is that his "errors" didn't even have an impact on the outcome of the game since Anderlecht won and qualified for the next round despite decisions. Tvx1 23:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also some coverage here and here far before the event, so he's been discussed for other events besides this. And it's not particularly relevant that it didn't have an impact on the outcome - there's still significant coverage, regardless of whether it's "justified" in your view. On an unrelated, I recommend you strike out the third sentence in your nomination since it's fairly clear that that has no bearing in a deletion discussion. Appable (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving two links to the exact same source doesn't create multiple sources. And the Irish FA doesn't quite constitute independent coverage. Tvx1 15:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – comments in this discussion have shown multiple independent sources covering this individual's work. WP:1E "Subjects notable only for one event" does surely not apply since he has been a FIFA referee for a five-year period. Participants in international football matches are regularly kept at AfD discussions, and the referee is on the field with the 22+ players (including playing substitutes). Vandalism does not preclude notability. The nominator challenging every !vote they disagree with is rather poor form, as well. C679 01:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per above comments, especially Cloudz679's argument. Article should be improved though. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Is refereeing at the highest level, BLP1E not relevant here as the sources above are discussing one event that indicates notability not the only event. Fenix down (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it would be helpful if there were some articles showing that he has received significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Are there any feature articles in reliable sources that deal with him as a person? Hack (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to add on that there's another source (that I don't think was mentioned yet in this AfD) about the first Europa League match that he refereed, which I think is significant (I know nothing about sports, but the article makes it sound notable). Here's a link. Appable (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me google that for you - the first two results, one of which is mentioned above are coverage of him in general, the first few pages show quite few international media outlets reporting specifically about this referee, not just about recent performances but also in general about his appointments to games at the highest level of club football. Fenix down (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what results you're seeing, but I see a profile by his employer (not an independent source) and a blog (not a reliable source). Hack (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so, the Irish FA source is absolutely fine given the wealth of top level third party sourcing available in addition, so no issue there, it is perfectly useable to derive encyclopedic content. Secondly, you can't just say blog = unreliable, you need to provide evidence to support your claim, please. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. WP:SPS states that blogs are largely unacceptable. Regardless, 99% of the sources that have been brought up here are simply match-ups listing all the officials. That isn't much proof of significance. That's information that needs to be announced because the teams themselves need to know that. No sources have so far been provide that actually discuss his performances outside of that one Europa League match last thursday, which is currently given undue weight in the article. Tvx1 17:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the source I listed above by the Impartial Reporter? Appable (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, my opinion is that the incident itself is clearly notable - there's been a lot of commentary in the media about that. So I think it'd be worth a standalone article somewhere. The question is - what's notable? Is it the event, or the person? In this case, I think Arnold Hunter is the subject made notable by the event, the majority of people and media looking or reporting for this event will know it as the bad calls by Arnold Hunter (rather than the Europa League incident), and that it's worth having an article about him because he was made notable by this particular event. That being said, I think there's still verifiable and possibly notable information about the person beyond this particular incident; seeing the sources that some people have mentioned proves at least some level of significance beyond that event. I feel like we're seeing a lot of consensus that this person is notable enough for inclusion, though obviously nom disagrees still. Appable (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sourcing above; article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 18:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep International referee, and passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – After looking closely at the article and the comments above, it is my opinion that this international referee passes WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 21:36, 3 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adesayo Oyedijo[edit]

Adesayo Oyedijo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:ACADEMICS. Being a Dean of a faculty is not enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC threshold. Sources provided are not about him and majority of the sources are unreliable. He's only doing his job and nothing more. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator, and also because this reads like a resume, and I cannot find any coverage besides one passing mention in connection with somebody else's death. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Wikic¤l¤gy Dear Olatunde, after reading through your comments suggesting that the article on Adesayo Oyedijo should be deleted, I must say I was very surprised at your level of judgement and your ability to actually criticize or make expert opinions. You stated that Ade Oyedijo was just doing his job and that being a Dean of a faculty is not enough to meet the WP:ACADEMIC threshold. I totally disagree with your thinking here which I think is very poor. A Dean of a faculty at a University is a very high position. To become a Dean of a faculty, you must be a reputable, respectable and excellent academic. Infact, being a Faculty Dean at a University is one of the highest positions an academic can ever attain in their career. The Vice Chancellor of a University is also performing is job in my opinion. Politicians and Presidents are also doing their jobs. What makes someone like Adesayo Oyedijo exceptional at his job and worthy of publication is because of his achievements and excellence in the Nigerian Educational System. I am afraid to say your ability to analyze things is quite poor. However, it is disturbing that you could say otherwise. If you read through his profile properly, you will find that he was not just doing his job like you stated, he was exceptional at his job. He achieved so much as a academic from Nigeria and his page is worth seeing by the whole world. When you talk about references/sources to show is Notability, he was in the news such as (Sun, Vanguard). Many academics in Nigeria are not promoted particularly the ones with exceptional profiles such as Adesayo Oyedijo. His profile has been viewed by many people already and viewers are motivated by his achievements as a Nigerian academic. Looking at your personal page, I think you do not deserve to be on Wikipedia also. You have only one source and you being a manager at Wikipedia doesn't make you a notable person. It also doesn't make you worthy to be seen by the world. For your profile to be Wikipedia, It is my opinion that Adesayo Oyedijo deserves to be on Wikipedia more than you. You have not achieved anything spectacular from my evaluation and interpretation of things because your profile is very lame. I will also push for your profile to be removed with everything I have got only if you do what is right by allowing Adesayo Oyedijo's profile stay. Lastly, looking at your past record (requesting deletion of pages), a number of people have complained about your ability to make accurate judgement about pages. You are suppose to be a Nigerian Wikipedia ambassador promoting Nigerian Academics whose are profiles actually worth being seen by the world, but instead you were the very first person to demand for it to be deleted. You call yourself an academic and you act in such a very disturbing manner. I am very perturbed at your inability individuality. I worked on Adesayo Oyedijo's profile for one month, and you came the second day it got published to get rid of it. You should at least give constructive feedback on how to improve the page and not put it forward for deletion. Your nomination is invalid in my opinion, I am afraid. User:Vanamonde93 You keep saying the sources need to be reliable and substantial. I have done exactly that. I see thousands of articles on Wikipedia everyday and yours included that do not have the substantial, vast and reliable sources in my article on Adesayo Oyedijo. This man was a great academic in Nigeria and if you look at his profile closely, you will see that. His death was published in two news papers. How else can you justify that he was not a notable academic and that some of the sources do not meet the reliable criterion? I worked on the article for a whole month. I managed to get it published and 24hours after, you guys come out from no where to say it should be deleted. I quote again that your own articles in terms of the reliability of the sources and sustainability are not any different to mine. Instead of you to advice on how the page can be improved, you went straight ahead to request for it to be deleted. I am very upset at the way you approach my new article that took alot of hard work to create. Alot of people have viewed this article already and were inspired by the content and achievements the subject attained. His profile is very inspiring and is worthy of being on Wikipedia. I strongly oppose the opinion that the article on Adesayo Oyedijo should be deleted and should be kept to promote the face of Nigerian Academics. Keep!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gboyeaig11 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Gboyeaig11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete per nom, does not pass relevant notability criteria -- samtar talk or stalk 21:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite This article needs serious rewriting and paring down but I think being Dean of the Faculty qualifies as The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society (Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). Lagos State University has 61,000 students so I assume this makes it rank as a major academic institution for the area. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Mediating the point above, although this article might need paring down and rewriting, I completely agree with David Eppstein that the subject Adesayo Oyedijo has held a post that is recognized in the university and academia as one of the highest posts for an academic to occupy in a career or life time. Lagos State University is also a major academic society in Nigeria with 61,000 students which makes Adesayo Oyedijo qualify for the (Wikipedia:Notability (academics)) criteria. I oppose the argument that Adesayo Oyedijo should be deleted, but should be improved and kept on Wikipedia because the subject is worthy to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugejuls09 (talk • contribs) 11:53, February 29, 2016‎ (UTC) — Ugejuls09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • Huh? Why am I name-checked here? I have not yet expressed an opinion on this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought that was a bit odd too - this sockmaster is quite odd, and these new accounts are quackin' -- samtar talk or stalk 19:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The subject Adesayo Oyedijo meets the (Wikipedia:Notability (academics)) due to the high position he occupied at Lagos State University. Also because Lagos State University is a major university with a huge number of students (61,000), the subject occupied such a high post in this kind of academic society. Looking at the previous comments especially from WP:ACADEMICS saying that the subject was just doing his job, I beleive that this is an inappropriate statement. He was doing his job quite alright, but he excelled at it. To become a Dean at a large academic society like Lagos State University is a special achievement in an academic career in Nigeria. This article could be improved and edited to a better state. However, it is not approporate to delete it due to the above reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffjiaofenggeo (talk • contribs) 17:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC) — Jeffjiaofenggeo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete. Negligible citation counts on Google scholar show no evidence of passing WP:PROF#C1. Dean of a faculty is not a high-enough level administrative post to pass #C6 (that's reserved for the head of an entire major university). I don't think any of the society memberships listed rise to the level of #C3 (they are either national-level societies of unclear significance or non-honorary levels of membership). And those are the only things I see in the article that could plausibly be interpreted as a claim of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with the arguments of the nominator and David Eppstein. Clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC. Safiel (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Gboyeaig11, Ugejuls09, and Jeffjiaofenggeo have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gboyeaig11.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking comments and votes of blocked sockpuppets. Safiel (talk) 04:10, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Dynamical Evolution Theory[edit]

Quantum Dynamical Evolution Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fringe theory by a non-notable author (Sanathdeva Murutenge also being considered for deletion). No citations. Lithopsian (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:45, 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. Clearly meets WP:NFOOTY, having played in a fully professional league. (non-admin closure) Yash! 18:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Vasilev (Macedonian footballer)[edit]

Aleksandar Vasilev (Macedonian footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP: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. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Inter&anthro: Do you have source to confirm that? Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Sputnik: this article details Vasilev. Someone who might be Vasilev also could be in some of pictures on the club Zeyashwemye's Facebook page (see here). Inter&anthro (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am pinging these two users as they usually seem to know more about this subject field than I do: @Thihazaw88: @Nfitz:, Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Inter&anthro: That confirms that he was signed to a Burmese club, but not that he actually played. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Sputnik: Yeah I can't find any match reports from the Burmese league, for some reason there hard to come by. I've changed my vote to comment for now, I'm quite certain the subject has meet WP:NFOOTY or will so in the near future, although per WP:CBALL that isn't a valid argument. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being so fickle about the matter, but per Pharaoh of the Wizards's point I'm changing my vote to Keep again. Sorry about the confusion. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:11, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Padam Mishra[edit]

Padam Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography, fails WP:BIO. Contested proposed deletion. Sources cited in the article are either not WP:RS or don't mention this person. Google doesn't indicate notability either -- tried searching with "Padam Mishra", "Padam Nath Mishra" and "Padamnath Mishra". utcursch | talk 22:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 22:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this solidly suggests convincing notability for WP:CREATIVE-WP:ENTERTAINER, he would not be automatically notable because of the films. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 1 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jindal Tower[edit]

Jindal Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable structure per WP:GEOFEAT. Article is unsourced and could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. Drm310 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any sources indicating that this run-of-the-mill apartment complex is notable. Camerafiend (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Could not locate any sources on Google search or Google Books discussing the building itself (as opposed to maybe discussing some business that's in it in a passing way). TheBlinkster (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not separately notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:28, 3 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Opilka[edit]

Luke Opilka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Teenage amateur player who's won no particular distinctions, meets no elements of NHOCKEY. No evidence of meeting the GNG. Ravenswing 06:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would be quite difficult for Opilka to have been an All-American when he hasn't yet been to college, and playing major junior removes his eligibility to play college hockey. Are you sure you're not thinking about another player? Ravenswing 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - @Ravenswing: I believe Tchaliburton is referring to the CCM/USA Hockey All-American Prospects Game; Opilka played in 2014 logging nearly 30 minutes on the ice. I note that the game has only existed since 2012, so I must conclude that it is not a "preeminent honor ... in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league," thus failing point 4 of WP:NHOCKEY. No other point of NHOCKEY has been met, the subject cannot meet NCOLLATH because he has played in the OHL, and I find no evidence that he has met NHSPHSATH. His Google results generally do not meet the requirements of GNG, either for not being reliable, for not being independent, or for being routine coverage. I just don't see enough in depth independent coverage to meet GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:32, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Secret (magazine)[edit]

Top Secret (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was prodded with the following rationale: Completely unsourced article. Searches did not turn up anything on any of the search engines. There were some hits on Books, but they appear to be about other magazines with this same name. Was de-prodded with the following comment, "contest deletion - the linked Polish Wikipedia article has some sources that appear prima facie to be independent and reliable, so this shouldn't be deleted without discussion". I looked at the Polish Wiki article, and the references seem to be non-independent of the subject, but I could definitely be wrong. Onel5969 TT me 21:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep while article definitely does require sourcing - Polish version does have a few notable, independent sources that can be used, notably gamezilla, galu, polygamia. If there's anything that can be questioned it's notability for English wikipedia, as magazine in question is rather unknown abroad (though one of more notable in Poland). SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia doesn't make any distinction as to where a subject is notable, or the language of sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we take any language source for notability determinations, but we also have different notability and source reliability standards than other Wikipedias. czar 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Polish WP page is mostly original research based on primary sources, and the three secondary sources mentioned are of unclear reliability (and the second, the interview, definitely isn't). If anything, I could justify a section within an article on the mag's publisher, if there were enough sources for that project. czar 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. czar 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Draft and Userfy if needed as although the Polish Wiki has some sources, the article is still questionable overall and would be best restarted or at least reworked to be better. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the one who contested WP:PROD deletion, because it seemed that a discussion was needed to evaluate the sources in the Polish Wikipedia article. On looking at them further (and yes, I read Polish pretty fluently) it doesn't seem that there is much independence and/or reliability there, so this looks like a "delete" unless someone can do better than me (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) at finding independent reliable sources. If this is deleted I don't see any point in putting it in draft or user space - the point of Wikipedia being a wiki is that articles on viable topics are available to anyone to edit rather than hidden away where nobody will see them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not currently verifiable. Publishing house and editors not in Wikipedia, which means the only way to verify any of this is with independent, reliable references. These are completely lacking in the article currently; according to 86.17.222.157 (talk · contribs) even the ones in the Polish wiki don't really do the job. ubiquity (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misfits of Film[edit]

Misfits of Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the subject's coverage is on IMDb and appears to lack notability. Meatsgains (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --27century (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources, and the article is way too promotional. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply an indie film with no further convincing coverage, searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References to IMDB pages and mentions in film festival programs/literature do not convey notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kesha in popular culture[edit]

Kesha in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The short article features the singer's hit songs in TV series (which usually happens when a song is a hit), not exactly the singer herself in popular culture - and cover version of her songs. That content can be merged on the songs' articles. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Like you wrote, it's not about the singer herself but about the specific songs being featured minorly. I think at best these belong as mentions to the singles' own articles. Some even were already, like Blow written to have been played on Victorious. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolute listcruft that is really better for song articles Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The list can be incorporated into related articles. Meatsgains (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since their is no point repeating what others have already stated, I will just state that I agree with the previous comments. WannaBeEditor (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. How did I even miss this pile? —IB [ Poke ] 10:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She is no Madonna. -- Frankie talk 12:27, 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 merge to Khojaly massacre memorials.  Sandstein  21:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly Massacre Memorial (Berlin)[edit]

Khojaly Massacre Memorial (Berlin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is only based on two partisan Azerbaidjani sources (violating WP:NPOV) – content not verifiable. Third-party sources missing. No Wikipedia quality standard. Notability contested WP:N Markus2685 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why did you delete a source and some text when you added the AfD: 1? That's shady. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is not shady. I have just removed content that is not verifiable according to Wikipedia guidlines. Since you use the term "shady" – it is very shady how all these Khojaly memorial and commemoration articles are violating guidelines and are sourced with mainly non-reliable partisan Azerbaidjani sources and dead links, and thus are not fulfilling Wikipedia quality standards at all. WP:VERIFY Markus2685 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can sources about a memorial existing be partisan? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to have an article on an encyclopedia, it should at least follow the basic Wikipedia rules and guideines: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:N Markus2685 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 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.  Sandstein  22:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Furniss[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Matt Furniss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. It's been almost a year since the last AfD and there has been no change in sourcing. A redirect to Mortal Kombat or Excitebike 64 could be a useful search term, but I don't feel strongly either way. Courtesy pings for previous participants: @Ohnoitsjamie, Dissident93, Rpclod, and Salvidrim! czar 17:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD details - My "reclosing" of AFD1 from "delete" to "no consensus" was absolutely unconventional and understandably Czar disagreed, which is prefectly reasonable. I'm certainly fine with thisAfD2. For more background on my decision to restore and reclose after AfD1, see Matt Furniss's (allegedly) request for restoration: User talk:Salvidrim!/Q2 2015 Archive#Matt Furniss page, deleted?. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reference 1 is disingenuously listed. It is not as indicated, but is just a user registration form. Red flag if the article relies on this. Reference 2 is an old Sega 16 interview, which did not suggest notability then and nor does it now. Reference 3 is dead and was just a database, so no indication of notability then or now. Reference 4 is a kickstarter appeal for money from an author other than the subject, who is just obliquely referenced once in a list with others. So, we have only one potential reference which is from a non-authoritative source that suggests that the subject did his job like everyone else. Even if that suggested notability - which it does not - it is insufficient.--Rpclod (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't redirect as proposed - Without commenting on keeping-vs.-deleting, this title should not be redirected to Excitebike 64 or Fear Effect: per the principle of least astonishment for readers, just because he's mentioned in the infobox of another article that is totally not about him doesn't mean the title should point there. It should only be pointed to somewhere where Matt Furniss is actually covered briefly, potentially Gaikai, Project Sidologie, The History of U.S. Gold, etc. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those topics (meant MK instead of FE) weren't chosen randomly—they're the works associated with his career and ostensibly where most could be written about his contributions. (Either way, I'm not advocating for a redirect.) czar 19:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still no significant coverage from anything resembling a reliable source (i.e, Sega-16 enthusiast site is not an RS). Having a lot of production credits does not satisfy WP:GNG whether it be film, video games, or music. Lots of people work on multiple creative projects. Most of them aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete the page. Thanks. Matt. Mattfurniss (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is still questionably solidly notable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 1 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. Unopposed.  Sandstein  21:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fraternities and sororities at George Mason University[edit]

List of fraternities and sororities at George Mason University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article relies solely upon sources from George Mason University's web site and web sites of the fraternity and sorority chapters themselves. Many of the cited sources are dead links now anyway. No independent sources have been provided at all. It is unclear to me what the benefit is of having this as a stand-alone list in its current form.

This article was previously nominated for AfD in 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fraternities and Sororities at George Mason University, and the result was "no consensus". The closer stated that the balance of opinion was "to retain the information the question is as to where". If that is still a concern, George Mason University#Greek life already lists most of these organizations. So this list would be suitable to be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails notability, and there is no need for a stand alone article. WannaBeEditor (talk) 03:28, 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.  Sandstein  22:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Berry[edit]

Morgan Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, for what that's worth, but the individual actor was not the subject of any sort of extended coverage. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, but a redirect to a major mention in a character list would be fine by me. czar 17:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant promotional article and conflict of interest. 11 sources, all of which are either the website of her employers or related twitter accounts and none indicate notability. Anime voice actors are notoriously difficult to prove notability for at the best of times, and I don't see any reason that this would be an example of one that shows notability. ANN has some cast announcements but thats not a sign of notability. SephyTheThird (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I see the (presumably) page author is gaming the system by using a separate account and creating a peer review to "clear" the page by offering an "alternate view". A look at the contribs speaks volumes. Granted it could be a separate person, but that would just make it more suspicious. [5]. Found another two [6][7] Something is going on here. Multiple accounts all adding to the same user who only edits their own pages to start with. Quite a long timeframe if you ask me but all very odd and all very questionable. SephyTheThird (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article fails WP:NACTOR, and moreover GNG Cindlevet (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given her Akuma no Riddle dub role, I would normally be inclined to support at least a weak keep, but searching for more coverage results mostly in false positives about people with the same name or similar names and not much else. At best I guess she's simply a TOO SOON case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle McRae[edit]

Danielle McRae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no substantial hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. The links currently in the article are either unreliable or not in depth (passing mentions). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 16:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ENT and WP:TOOSOON No major roles. ANN on the manga/anime side only shows episodic and minor/supporting roles. She does frequent anime conventions, so waiting for her to land those notable lead roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shropshire Bus Route 435[edit]

Shropshire Bus Route 435 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD declined on the basis that there has been a road traffic accident on the route. Notability is not inherited from a collision that is itself not notable for Wikipedia. A standard local bus route which fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Products and services are supposed to be covered in the article of the provider per WP:PRODUCT. Charles (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Class455fan1 (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. I would normally want to keep these kind of articles, however this one contains very little content and has no references whatsoever. Therefore it fails WP:GNG.It also qualifies for a Speedy Deletion under Section A7. Class455fan1 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the only piece of media coverage I can find, but that doesn't make it sufficiently notable. Rcsprinter123 (notify) 19:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The PROD was actually declined primarily on the basis that this is a plausible redirect to Minsterley Motors, which of course it is. Deletion would accordingly violate ATD. The Minsterly Motors article does contain material about the route. A7 does not apply to bus routes, because a bus route is a line on a map, a geographical place. NOTINHERITED, which is not even a guideline, does not apply to the 435 bus collision with a lorry, as that would be like saying that something can't inherit notability from its own history. In fact there is no inheritance alleged at all, as the collision is not a separate topic, it is an integral part of this topic. The argument advanced amounts to "a topic cannot inherit notability from itself" and that is gibberish nonsense. James500 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nordic Dragon 10:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Charles & Nordic - Fails both NOTTRAVEL and GNG, IMHO it's better off on Wikia or whatever. –Davey2010Talk 21:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The R Journal[edit]

The R Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded and deprodded with more refs but the refs do not fix the problem. Not notable, with no evidence of notability. All the refs are to the journal itself so not evidence of notability, and should not be the only sources. A quick look at R (programming language) finds no mention of it, no use of it as a source which suggests it has little impact even in the field it covers. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I have no idea what "prodded and deprodded" means. On that talk page there is now another vote (and surprise at your marking the page for deletion). The citations to papers published by the R Journal show (as does it's IF) that is a notable peer-reviewed journal. As does the calibre of the editors, the use of the journal to report new directions for the foundation and core software. Tim bates (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'prod', WP:PROD, is proposed deletion. I proposed it for deletion, [9], that was removed (deprodded) which means someone disagrees, so I created this so we can have a fuller discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expanding on the colloquialism - have not seen it before Tim bates (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with R (programming language): I think it is hard to show that the journal has independent notability outwith of the R Foundation and/or R (programming language). It has struggled for some years to be indexed by the main academic journal indices, I'm not sure whether it is any closer to being recognised in this way and therefore getting an impact factor. It exists, some people involved in the R language know and use it, but it has a very narrow following. This might change in the future as the influence of the R Project expands, but at present it isn't notable. JMWt (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct it is not indexed by pubmed or thomson - can you reference that it has struggled or even attempted to do so? The Journal appears in other lists, its articles appear in the main place people look these days (google scholar. For instance the Fox article on contrasts (not a stellar example, just a good one, and one that I had too hand) and dozens of others, e.g 43 citations to ggmaps article. Hundreds of other journals fail to get any papers cited this often. Any data on "narrow following"? I think the evidence of authority, citations, durability and growing future all lead the journal to comfortably meet the hurdle of encyclopedic notabilityTim bates (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The way this works is not that we all just make assertions as !votes to keep or delete, but that we give reasons which relate to the notability guidelines. There isn't one for academic journals, however WP:NJournals makes a strong case that a failure to be indexed is an indication that an academic journal is not notable, and you and I are agreed it is not in the main academic citation indices. Every page needs to be notable as per the WP:GNG which means that we'd need to be seeing references to this journal (and not the R Project, the language or the Foundation) in independent, secondary, reliable sources. I challenge you or anyone else to show me a significant descriptive reference in a secondary source, because I don't think it exists. As it happens, I know quite a lot about R and its importance. And, believe it or not, I knew a lot about the R Journal before seeing this AfD. But neither of those facts are relevant: the thing still needs to be shown to be notable before it gets to have a wikipedia page. JMWt (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does Thomson Reuter's "Science Citation Index Expanded" not count as a "main academic citation ind[ex]"? I too would be interested in a link describing the struggle to get indexed; I don't keep my eye on it that closely, and so hadn't heard anything about that.

Keep: This is the leading Journal serving one of the largest (and still fastest growing) statistical systems in the world. It impacts on statisticians, journalists, academics, scientists, industry R&D workers computer science and followers of trends in Open Source. So notable Tim bates (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am surprised to see saying the journal not notable. It's official journal of R and very reliable . So I recommend not to delete this page and agree with what Tim bates pointed out. Sulthan (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This journal is notable, at least according to criterion 1 in Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). The R Journal has an Impact Factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports (search for "R Journal", after "R & D Management" here and see the 2012-2015 impact factors for the journal here). As further evidence that it satisfies criterion 1, The R Journal is included in the Scopus database, one of the major citation indices (see here). As Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is in essay and not a full notability guideline, The R Journal is also the subject of a sub-chapter in The R Book (Crawley, 2012) (see here). I plan to improve the article with this reference, as well as other references available from Google Books and the Google News Archive. Given more time, I can also update this post with evidence of how The R Journal fits other non-essay notability criterion. - tucoxn\talk 22:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is an essay not a guideline. The reference you have found is only a brief mention, a couple of sentences, not enough for notability which requires significant coverage. As the guildeline says '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.', which is clearly not the case here. But I encourage you if you find such coverage to include it in the article, it would be the easiest way to change this from an obvious delete to an obvious keep.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that WP:NJournals is an essay in my !vote. Another essay for use in determining notability for this article is Wikipedia:Notability (media), which has a section on academic journals. Given more time, I will attempt to find more reliable sources for this article. - tucoxn\talk 17:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is not a policy or guideline, just an essay. Having an impact factor just means that it is listed in some database, it does not make it notable, as the inclusion criteria for such a database is very different from our notability criterion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having an impact factor makes it notable, yes. Argue about semantics of essays vs policies all you want, but that's how journals are judged. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: just a second, the link that @Tucoxn: gives above (here it is again) is for a Russian copycat site called Prescopus - which seems to have no connection to Scopus. Can someone who has access to the real Scopus check that the claim made above is correct? Also the Thomson Reuters link is pretty useless as it does indicate that an "R Journal" is included (page 342 of the pdf linked above) but this does not give any information as to whether this is the same publication or a different one with the same name. The only identifier used is that it is based in Austria, I'm not sure if that is true for the R Journal discussed here. JMWt (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The real Scopus list of Journals is on this page but I can't get the file to open. Anyone else able to? JMWt (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been able to establish that it is indeed in the TR list, see here. JMWt (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The R Journal is listed in the Scopus database. See this Excel spreadsheet of the database here. Its "Sourcerecord id" is 21100255423 and it's listed between "R and D: Research and Development Kobe Steel Engineering Reports" and "R.I. medical journal". The link I provided in my earlier post was an easier way to find digestible information (even though it's a Russian copy). - tucoxn\talk 18:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The R Journal has an impact factor, is indexed by Web of Science, and is the official organ of the R Foundation (an obviously notable organization). In my personal opinion (since there is no official guideline for academic journals) any one of those should be enough for notability. In addition, the first two are clearly sufficient to meet the criteria of the closest thing to an official guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). The article could doubtless be improved, and is doubtless obscure to many, but I don't see any issue with notability according to any theoretical standard that would broadly be suitable for academic journals. TimeLord mbw (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ulrich's R Journal is indexed by EBSCOhost, Scopus, and PubMed, in additional to Thomson Reuters (Web of Science). TimeLord mbw (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've s/t my !vote: I think we've now proven that it is now indexed in the main indexes, so according to the best available notability guides, that should be enough to keep. JMWt (talk) 09:03, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 19:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cryptids[edit]

List of cryptids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is an arbitrarily compiled mashup of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH built around principles and vocabulary ("cryptids") internal to a pseudoscience, cryptozoology. Beings from folklore (a topic handled by academics via folkloristics) are plucked seemingly at random by a few Wikipedia users and added to this list as "cryptids", only to be generally described as "unconfirmed". Comically, every now and then something from the fossil record is dropped in and listed as "extinct" for good measure. This list's entire concept is flawed, essentially any being in folklore qualifies as a so-called "cryptid" among cryptozoologists. This article needs to go. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about 'belief' regarding any of these beings 'existing'. And that has nothing at all to do with my deletion proposal. This is not a list of beings from folklore. Rather, this is a list of beings plucked from folklore and labeled entirely arbitrarily as "cryptids" via cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2016
All cryptids are based on sightings and are notplucked from folklore. Cryptozoology is unrelated to mythology and folklore according to it's founder Bernard Heuvelmans. Please tell me there is a legitimate reason for this tag other than someone's misconceptions on Cryptozoology.The Soldier of Peace (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

There are plenty of sources on cryptozoology. Anything that doesn't qualify as a cryptid can be removed by editing. I'm not sure I really see a good argument that we shouldn't have a list of cryptids. --Michig (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that you're new to this concept and, if so, I wish you'd dig into it a little more before deciding to place a vote here. To be clear, in this particular pseudoscientific approach, any creature from folklore is—and somewhere likely has been—called a "cryptid" by cryptozoologists. As a result, the scope of such a list unlimited. And it's pointless: There's no need for a list when we simply note this on the article space at cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not new to this concept, and I still don't see any coherent argument for deletion. There are supposed cryptids that are extremely notable topics irrespective of whether cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, and there are a whole host of books that discuss this topic. If you have a problem with unclear inclusion criteria, that's a matter for the article's talk page--Michig (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptozoology is based on sightings, not folklore. Also, most cryptids are exclusively based on sightings, with only a minority focused on folklore. Most cryptids are mostly separate from foloklore, so it would be unjust to delete the page on, for the most part, someone's misrepresentations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Soldier of Peace (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From dragons to mermaids and bigfoot to the kraken, cryptozoology is a pseudoscientific mash up of folklore and zoology. By far, the majority of sources used by cryptozoologists are indeed plucked from folklore. There's no getting around that, whether or not someone has claimed to have "seen" these beings. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Supposed cryptids"? "Whether cryptozoology is a pseudoscience"? Seriously? Not even sure where to begin here. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could start by realising that the fact that something may not be based on 'proper science' and may not exist in nature has zero bearing on its notability. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess you didn't look at my user page. I regularly edit articles on folklore—especially mythology—and have for about a decade here on Wikipedia. The creep of cryptozoology on such articles has long been a problem, as has creep from similarly unscientific fields in other areas of Wikipedia. You're evidently missing the point here—or are now too embarrassed to admit your mistake—so I'm going to spell it out again for you: This is a list without a single reliable source that identifies these creatures as "cryptids", is founded on a mess of WP:SYNTH, and pushes an unscientific taxonomy via cryptozoology. It's a WP:FRINGE list if ever there was. This isn't a list of "creatures considered cryptids by cryptozoologists" but rather, via Wikipedia voice, "cryptids"—and therein is the problem. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seriosuly, you need to calm down and stop throwing around nonsense like this. No, I didn't look at your user page. Why the hell would I? We're not here to discuss you. Go to Amazon and Google it - there are plenty of sources available. The current state of sourcing in this article has no bearing on the topic's notability. Do you get it yet? --Michig (talk) 11:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something like Coleman & Clark (1999) Cryptozoology A-Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras and Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature, Prentice Hall, ISBN 978-0684856025 or Newton (2004) Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide to Hidden Animals and Their Pursuers, McFarland & Co. Inc., ISBN 978-0786420360 would be good places to start if you want solid criteria for inclusion, and books such as these show that the topic has been covered in a way that makes a list like this suitable for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of these sources were written by cryptozoologists. Some of them even argue against cryptozoology being a pseudoscience. We need secondary sources—from academics. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need secondary sources from academics for articles on cryptozoology any more than we need secondary sources from academics for articles on scientology or pokemons. We simply need reliable sources that state the facts, published by reputable companies, which we have here. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, damn those academics! Why do they know anyway? Believe it or not, this has indeed been a topic much studied by academics and there are plenty of sources to use on this topic, which is exactly what we're using now for the expansion of cryptozoology. Often, pseudoscientific sources are not exactly trustworthy when it comes to their histories, context, and actions. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments in this AfD are getting more and more bizarre. You argue cryptozoology is not a science then claim that scientific sources need to exist. You say it should be deleted because it doesn't have secondary coverage from academics then you state that this topic has been much studied by academics. You state the article should be deleted because the 'entire concept is flawed' but (below) now support having a "List of notable cryptids", which by convention we would title "List of cryptids", i.e. exactly the title we have now. If the gist of your argument is that it is the quality of this article that is the issue and that it can be fixed by editing and better sourcing, you're simply wasting all of our time with this AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Michig, first of all, I doubt that I need to remind you that nobody forced your hand to participate in this AFD.
Cryptozoology is indeed pseudoscience. There's no debate about that. However, academics have studied cryptozoologists and cryptozoology—as a phenomenon. Both biologists and folklorists have commented on and studied the history of cryptozoology and its colorful characters, for example. And, indeed, the concept of the article is flawed, but turning it into a different list would provide some room to potentially solve some of those issues ("List of cryptids" is not the same as "list of notable cryptids" considering that any creature from the folklore record). Work has also continued on the list and on the cryptozoology article itself. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't much like the word cryptid and would prefer fabulous beast but whatever we call them, they certainly pass WP:LISTN. For example, see Cryptozoology A To Z: The Encyclopedia Of Loch Monsters Sasquatch Chupacabras And Other Authentic Myteries of Nature. Andrew D. (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The word cryptid is not a synonym for fabulous beast nor creature from folklore. Rather, it's a specific term used by cryptozoologists. The book you've cited doesn't help the case of the list—there is no question that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and that essentially any creature from folklore can be considered a "cryptid" by cryptozoologists. Further, the list violates any number of Wikipedia policies, from WP:OR to WP:SYNTH. It doesn't even bother to cite cryptozoologists describing these beings as "cryptids" but rather finds a bunch of random creatures from folklore and lists them as "cryptids". That's a serious problem. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cryptozoology provides a quote by Henry Gee, editor of Nature, "Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold." So, cryptids are considered to be fabulous creatures. Q.E.D. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 07:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? You went to the cryptozoology article, ignored everything else there, and came back with that? Crypted is a specialized term' used in a "field" of pseudoscience. What's with these drive-by editors who decide to vote on AFD postings without researching the topic—then dig in to defend themselves when called out rather than admitting that they're wrong? :bloodofox: (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm serious. No, I didn't ignore everything else. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep Bloodofox is right, the article is an artificial synthesis of a fringe taxonomy written from the point of view of a pseudoscience - in Wikipedia's voice. Consensus around sourcing requirements for fringe topics has evolved since this article was first created back in 2006. Today we wouldn't allow editors to create a "List of faith healing cures" and categorize items on that list by "confirmed" and "unconfirmed" just because a number of the cures on the list could be sourced to faith healing literature. This list of "cryptids" is essentially of the same ilk and needs to go all the WP:OR determinations of "status", WP:SYNTH "categories" and non-WP:FRIND sourcing issues addressed by heavy editing to bring it into line with WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV.- LuckyLouie (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see those list pages do not contain an artificially synthesized taxonomy categorizing items from the fringe point of view. In the very least, List of cryptids should be similarly brought back into line with NPOV and FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but I don't see any editing helping this list. The only way it would refrain from violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is by changing it to a list of beings that cryptozoologists have referred to as "cryptids", which is any creature from folklore (and all of this would have to be fully referenced to specific cryptozoologists no less). This can (or is) handled on the cryptozoology article in a single sentence. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As far as I can see, this has a clear inclussion criteria and contains notable entries, with plenty of sources. I think an RfC on the talkpage would be a better idea, rather than this AfD. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look at sources before you comment on how "plentiful" they are. This article is extremely poorly sourced—it's nothing more than WP:SYNTH. Dead links, another Wikipedia article used as a reference, and no mention of "cryptids" (a term internal to cryptozoology). It couldn't be any worse. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a precedent for articles of this sort that somewhat mirror a category (in this case, Category:Cryptids). In other words, if an article can be included in that category, it can be included in this list, along with some snippet of information. List entries without their own article (the usual source of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues in lists) can be addressed on the article talk page. AFD is not cleanup and I'm not convinced this article's problems are insurmountable. clpo13(talk) 00:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered what is *in* that category? Those entries absolutely need to be removed from those categories—like I've said before every creature in folklore can is called a "cryptid" in cryptozoology. And, of course, we don't promote pseudoscience in Wikipedia's voice. According to Wikipedia (and everyone outside of the world of cryptozoology), there's no such thing as a "cryptid". That category needs to be deleted more than this list does. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Reporting on pseudoscience is not the same as promoting it, and the pseudoscience here is notable enough to be reported on. clpo13(talk) 05:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic with plenty of sources covering it. Dimadick (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my mind to "keep" but I don't agree to "keep with no changes". After this AfD closes, some substantial edits will need to happen to strip out the WP:OR and bring the article in line with other list articles, making it clear that items in the list reflect the distinct minority view of cryptozoologists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though needs work - it's messy, but this is an encyclopedic topic and a useful sort of article to have. So who here is going to help clean it up? (cough) - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this list ostensibly covers a coherent set of notable topics, and seems useful (ie adds value over just having the category alone). The fact that it covers topics in pseudoscience is not a good reason to delete it. However, I certainly agree that it could use mucho improvement, especially when it comes to the inclusion criteria: it should be restricted to things that are notable as cryptids, not just notable things that have been referred to as cryptids once by someone at some point. This can certainly include real taxa or folkloric beings, as long as they have achieved notability (usually notoriety) in their association with cryptozoology (eg the Eastern cougar, which was obviously real and studied by real scientists, but has received so much cryptozoological attention that this makes up a significant part of its main article). Those interested in helping may want to take a look at the list of unproven and disproven cancer treatments: it's also all about pseudoscience, but pretty dang concise and informative, and that format seems much better suited for this kind of material. -- bornLoser (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be on board for turning the list into something like "List of notable cryptids". Right now, the article violates about every element of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and has a limitless scope, inviting random users to throw up something they've found somewhere on the internet and judge whether or not it's been "confirmed". :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the list could use better sourcing, the topic is notable and there is plenty of material to use. Dimadick (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user has been Wikistalking me and recently stated that folkloristics is a pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  21:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grok[edit]

Grok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

While some articles about words are valid encyclopedic topics, this does not appear to be the case here. This article consists of nothing but dictionary content. It starts with a definition, moves on to etymology, and ends with a long list of usage examples. All of these are dictionary content; there is quite literally nothing encyclopedic here, which would justify an encyclopedia article.

Furthermore, it's abysmally sourced. The references are all for the usage examples; no references for the definition or etymology. And almost all of the external links are themselves dictionaries, which really should tell us something. Powers T 15:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll wait to see how the discussion goes but I'm wondering if the concept (rather than the word) might merit an article (and there does appear to be such a programming concept). One random source that came up on google scholar dedicates a couple of pages to it [10]. If the concept is deemed notable, then I guess it's better to add a proper lead to the article and trim all the word usage info (possibly moving it to wiktionary). Uanfala (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if the concept is sufficiently different from Understanding to merit its own article, but at the very least, the name would have to be recast to be a noun. Powers T 00:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I admit I clicked this to laugh at how ridiculous the justification for deleting this article would be, but I was pleasantly surprised to learn that this is not at all the case. Nonetheless, I think perhaps you should consider that while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, it is also the first, trusted, source for a very large portion of the WORLD population to begin learning about something new, and the article in the current stage manages that quite well, even though it is deficient in many of the ways you have pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.27.211 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect. Wiktionary already has an article on this, so this can be soft-redirected. Yes, it's used pretty often, but this is still just a glorified dictionary definition. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to wikt:grok and soft redirect - I'm not convinced this is anything more than a dictionary entry. ~Kvng (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as mentioned because this seems best connected to this subject with no solid signs of a better independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:grok per Kvng. I do think this as a concept could be worth an article, but I'm not really sure what that article would be called or look like. ansh666 00:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I've been convinced by the comments below that this is more than just a long-winded dictionary entry. ansh666 02:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The entire Article looks oddly more like a Wiktionary entry than a Wikipedia one. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is more tha wprd, it is a concept of literary -- and perhaps even more general significance. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just telling my partner about this, as it's a useful concept. She looked through the article and was incredulous that anyone would want to delete it. Hearing her reaction, I checked its stats. It started as part of the Jargon File and was introduced to Wikipedia in 2001 where it has had 575 edits from 369 editors. There's a reasonable amount of discussion on the talk page, but I don't see anyone suggesting that it should be deleted. And it gets about 480 hits per day. In other words, someone reads the article every three minutes. After all this time, effort, readership and acceptance of the topic, it seems quite outrageous that a drive-by editor can so casually propose that it now be deleted. As Wikipedia matures but attendance at AFD withers, we should raise the bar for such nominations. Andrew D. (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I searched for Grok in an academic search engine, I were only able to find things coincidentally named Grok or just the acronym G.R.O.K. but not the term itself. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can click the Google scholar search link provided above to see that it has 8,530 hits for this topic. Andrew D. (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the point, they're Grok but not the Grok we know. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As DGG says, this has been a notable concept, not merely a word, since the Sixties. WP:DICT should not be misused to remove valuable content on notable subjects like this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though the references in the article aren't great, better refs are easily found which support its notability, e.g.[11] The article just needs work. Manul ~ talk 04:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your linked reference is a dictionary! How does having an entry in a dictionary support the encyclopedic notability of the topic? Powers T 19:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Commenters above cannot even agree if this is an article about a notable word or an article about the concept of grokking. I think that just serves to illustrate how poor this "article" is. Could it be improved? Perhaps, but first we'd have to agree on whether the word is notable on its own (and there's very little evidence of that), or if the concept is sufficiently different from understanding to be worthy of its own article (and there's not much evidence of that at the moment, either). Powers T 19:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons cited by Andrew Davidson. This seems to be a valid term with notable uses. Even if the article is in a poor state, notability is established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimadick (talk • contribs)
    Established by what? The sources don't do it. No one's denying it's a valid term with notable uses, but that alone doesn't satisfy our inclusion criteria. Powers T 18:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—WP:NOTADICTIONARY specifically calls out our article on thou as a case where a word, by dint of its demonstrated notability, is an encyclopedic topic. Here are two papers a few cites where the term is discussed at some length.
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially due to the information given by Lesser Cartographies immediately above. There's enough to show that the article is capable of discussing the word as a concept instead of a simple dictionary definition. clpo13(talk) 00:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep enough meat to it that it;s not just a dicdef. Artw (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep#1, noting that the nominator has now !voted keep effectively withdrawing their nomination and that there are now no remaining arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jes Baker[edit]

Jes Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

one book, not a best seller (196 copies in libraries)_ A promotional article about a promotional speaker. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this is convincing enough. Delete as my searches found nothing convincingly better at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm changing my vote in recognition of the work done by BrillLyle which have included improvements to the referencing that now allow the case to be made that she might pass WP:GNG. I think DGG's concerns about it sounding promotional were valid and haven't yet been fully addressed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This person is part of a feminist movement and probably makes people uncomfortable. But she is notable within her field and has gotten mainstream press. She has over 5 legit citations so there's zero reason for her entry to be deleted. Zero. I will try to wiki-fy the article, but really strong NO on deleting article -- BrillLyle (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea to judge notability according to our sympathy with someone's views, or the merit of their cause. To be realistic, I suppose we all do that subconsciously to some extent, but it can lead to advocacy according to the prevailing sympathies here. )I admit to a certain personal bias for incomplwtely documented third world anti-colonialist revolutionaries) But since it looks like there just might be enough to be kept, I'll do some further editing. DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG David although I am a fellow fatty I did not do a scrub and add to this entry out of sympathies. I saw multiple mentions of this subject's entry on pages for current and future A+F editathons because this woman is notable in her area of expertise. It was clear the page was listed for improvement work, needed help. I genuinely wanted to see if I could find enough supporting citations to support subject's notability. During the scrub -- and more importantly during what turned out to be not even a deep search for legit sources -- it became clear that the subject has been involved in work that is notable. I was looking for legit sources to present an alternative perspective to support this claim of promotion but found only one very specious blog post that I removed for ITS lack of notability / legitimacy. Would you like me to do a deeper search for information to support this article? I think it's a bit of overkill and over scrutiny here so I am confused. I could throw a stick and find loads of existing articles on male subjects that are in much worse notability and promotional shape. Plus you will probably have spilkes once A+F begins and all these women artists are added and there isn't proper time to generate citations to support notability -- even if subject is notable -- but isn't on Wikipedia yet because of the gender gap issue. Anyway we can also have a lively in person debate and/or discussion on this at MoMA. Would also make a great lightning talk...! Xo -- BrillLyle (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BrillLyle, thanks for clarifying. I admit that I am personally much more likely to work on something I find interesting, and I am aware that this sometimes means something to which I am sympathetic--and I assume that I'm not unique. If it has anything to do with male/female, or other group membership, it tends to incline me to work harder on those which are under-represented in the sources. But I can;t deny that there does exist some downright prejudice here on WP, as was revealed by some of the responses to the Signpost editorial. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hey @DGG: I did a pretty good scrub of the article and found a lot more citations. Not sure where you looked SwisterTwister but the info is out there. I think the AfD tag can be removed now. -- BrillLyle (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It remains entirely promotional about her views. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's not promotional, the work she is doing. Her book is almost 9/10ths writing by others. I think her work is clearly notable, and she has legit citations and coverage. Anyone else want to chime in. BrillLyle (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
now cleaned DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A notable woman in the feminist movement, and the references make that point. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources indicate notability.--Ipigott (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't withdraw the nomination, for there has been a delete vote from someone else, but I think the evidence for notability is now satisfactory and the promotionalism removed. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: So what do you think now that the article has been revamped? gobonobo + c 03:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watches & Jewellery of Bond Street[edit]

Watches & Jewellery of Bond Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NOT NEWS -- notable only for a robbery that took place there DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there's simply not enough for convincing notability, searches found some links at Books, News and browsers and nothing else outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - the robbery is somewhat notable, but I do not believe there is anything independently notable at the store at this time. Obviously some crimes DO make a place famous or notorious, such as the Spaghetti House siege but as you can see in that case the crime has an entry itself, not the restaurant. Shritwod (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there was so much about this in the news when it happened (constant airplay on BBC, The Guardian, Sky News, ITV News, Daily Mail, etc.) that it made the shop itself notable. I suggest keeping the article as a reference to this. The article itself has enough reliable sources to verify all information. CuoreAisne (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Vote struck - account was a sock of an indefinitely blocked editor. - Bilby (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This received some media attention, but it seems to mostly center around the time period that the event happened. In other words it received the same type of coverage that most crimes tend to receive, especially if it had an unusual element. What we'd need to establish that this crime was particularly noteworthy is to show that there's a depth of coverage, which is typically displayed by the crime continuing to garner discussion in the news and in academic sources years after the fact. It's really, really difficult for most crimes to show this because the media tends to grab on to a story and then drop it for the newest crime. It's usually the most salacious stuff that remains in the public eye or gains additional coverage. Much of this seems to be fairly routine. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The incident took place in 2014, and in 2015 it was still receiving news coverage (mainly pertaining to the "life-changing injuries" that the security guard at the shop had received, as well as a reminder of the event itself). As it's still a fairly-recent event, it's hard to know if it will receive future in-depth coverage. What it has done though is set a new landmark for the type of incident that can occur in central London, which is what the media has endeavoured to outline.CuoreAisne (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then isn't it the crime that is notable, and not the retail establishment? In which case there should be an article about the crime? And that's probably a WHOLE different set of notability criteria to take into account.. Shritwod (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we could also go this route. Like I wrote in my original suggestion, I found there is enough mention about the shop in the media sources to name this article after the shop.CuoreAisne (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rework the article completely to be about the crime. Currently it has a very misleading structure, talking about accident mostly and then switching to the gallery story. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reworked the article to focus on crime. NoFame (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)— Firesigns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete One of the references was for a different, nearly identical, robbery held years later. If we can confuse two separate robbery attempts, then I'm hard pressed to see it as particularly unique. There is no real evidence that this crime was anything particularly notable, and certainly nothing beyond the crime to suggest that the store is of note. - Bilby (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storage hierarchy media with costs[edit]

List of Storage hierarchy media with costs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOPRICES and WP:NOTSTATBOOK - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a price guide. This could be a useful blog post, but it doesn't belong here. If someone else performed this research, maybe we could summarize their results somewhere, but it is inappropriate to perform our own research. How are the products, services, and stores chosen? It's entirely too arbitrary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it reeks of WP:ADMASQ for Amazon's cloud services (the only firm that is quoted inside the table...), but more to the point this fails WP:SAL. The "paper" entry makes me think even the creator was not entirely serious. Tigraan (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. As other editors have mentioned, this is useful information, but it is not encyclopedic information. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitredeconion[edit]

Bitredeconion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not independently notable. Not come across the name, but these are the first unnamed algebra generated by the Cayley–Dickson construction so should probably redirect there. The name is just something someone has made up. Not a reliable source, not even a correct source as the article says. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This term gets zero non-Wikipedia hits on the web or in GScholar. This looks like a neologism with zero uptake, so even a redirect is inappropriate. --Mark viking (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seems to be no independent source other than a personal webpage. Magidin (talk) 04:12, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Trowbridge and Jessica Westbrook[edit]

Adam Trowbridge and Jessica Westbrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reasonable establishment of notability of the individuals or their collaborations. There are a lot of sources, but most of them appear to be primary sources or small local secondary sources (I'll admit, I did not click all 87 links). The one exception was a brief Washington Post article about Trowbridge (citation #7), but it didn't really do much to establish notability. Googling for sources on Trowbridge, Westbrook, Channel TWo [CH2], Array [ ], and the other projects mentioned in this article did not turn up anything of note. IagoQnsi (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are the Professors at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago and they are the New Media Artists who won the difficult Rhizome Award.

Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (creatives)

Published 2016 Chapter; 1000 Platforms Deepening Teaching, Filimowicz, Michael, ed. Cambridge University Press Published 2016 Featured CH2 interview and project "Find Each Other. Begin there." in book Mueller, Ellen. Elements and Principles of 4D Art and Design, Oxford University Press Published Media-N Journal of the New Media Caucus College Art Association http://median.newmediacaucus.org/tracing-newmediafeminisms/ Presenters HASTAC 2016 Peer Reviewed http://hastac2016.sched.org/event/6DtJ/critical-of-games-in-an-art-school-context-a-narrative-case-study Presenters FATE 2015 4D Foundations: New Media in an Old Media Classroom Peer Reviewed http://www.foundations-art.org/assets/conferences/fate_program_final.pdf Presenters 2016 School of the Art Institute of Chicago Pioneers of the Prairie Feminist Symposium http://www.saic.edu/150/pioneers-prairie-celebrating-women-new-media-arts Presenters 2012 “Writing Your Own Instructions, New Media Approaches for 2022” MACAA Conference, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI Presenters 2011 “Free iPads!?: Scalable Digital Pedagogies” Mobility Shifts, Politics of Digital Culture Symposium, The New School, New York, NY Invited Faculty 2015, 2014 School of the Art Institute of Chicago/Northwestern University DataViz Faculty http://www.saic.edu/academics/areasofstudy/artandscience/datavizcollaborative/ Highly Competitive award 2014 SPACES, R+D http://www.spacesgallery.org/project/ambiguous-redirect Highly Competitive award 2012 Rhizome New Museum Award http://rhizome.org/editorial/2012/jul/16/rhizome-announces-commissions-2012-grantees/ Highly Competitive award 2011 Turbulence Award http://turbulence.org/project/channel-two-nyc/ WP:CREATIVE Both of these artists are tenured faculty at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL USA Oxford University Press Interview http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780190225148/ch5/inter/i5/ Permanent Art Collection The Vault, Media Flat File, SPACES, Cleveland, OH Permanent Art Collection Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art, Cornell University Permanent Art Collection Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, Reproduction, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Both are tenured faculty at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL USA Original Concept Editors Dynamic Coupling on New Media Art Collaboration. http://median.newmediacaucus.org/fall-2010-v-06-n-02-dynamic-coupling/ The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. Channel TWo projects are exhibited nationally and internationally in curated exhibitions including Blank Arcade: Games out of Joint, DiGRA | Digital Games Research Association, Lüneburg, Germany Stimulus/Response/Affect, Oakland University, Oakland, MI Synthetic Zero, BronxArtSpace; Bronx, NY Traces in the Dark, Institute of Contemporary Art, University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia, PA Images Contre Nature, International festival of experimental video, Théâtre des Chartreux, Marseille, France Inverted Normals, Rowan University Art Gallery, Glassboro, NJ Blank Arcade, DiGRA | Digital Games Association, Salt Lake City, UT glitChicago, Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art, Chicago, IL Catch Me if You Can, Black Iris, Richmond, VA Designated Drivers, Butler Museum of American Art, Youngstown, OH The Vault SPACES, Cleveland, OH Cyber In Securities Washington Project for the Arts, Washington, DC twohundredfiftysixcolors, Gene Siskel Film Center, Chicago, IL; and Bell Lightbox Theater, Toronto, ON 404 Not Found, Co-Prosperity Sphere, Chicago, IL Thin Air, Bushwick, New York, NY Designated Drivers, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX Darkside of Digital, Center for 21st Century Studies, Milwaukee, WI Risky Business, HTMlles Feminist Festival of Media Arts and Digital Cultures Montréal, Québec Downcast Eyes, Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, IL Born Digital, Contemporary Art Museum (CAM), Raleigh, NC Scan2Go, College Art Association, Los Angeles, CA Math + Art, St. Mary’s College, Notre Dame, IN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.40.29.3 (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 198.40.29.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like an autobio given that the SPA only has 1 real edit (creating this article) and the enormous mountain of WP:OR. No convincing notability claim. We rarely have "team bios" here at WP. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. For an article like this, I'd want to see evidence not only that the individual artists are notable but that their collaboration is notable. But among all the WP:Wikipuffery in the article, it's hard to see anything that would pass WP:ARTIST. I don't see in-depth reviews of their collaborative work in major newspapers, for instance, or inclusion in the collections of major museums. And even if it is kept, the article needs to be severely trimmed of its promotional language and badly-sourced content. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Agricola and David Eppstein have the right policies, but WP:TNT is almost as compelling -- rewriting this would take 10x longer than starting from scratch and given the style of writing, the possibility of copyvio is real as well -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(However, I disagree with David Eppstein that the artists would need to be notable individually as well as as collaborators to get the article as a keep. Some artists who primarily work together should be considered notable as a pair/group/etc., just as bands can be notable w/o their members being notable, research groups, etc. Even while deleting I don't want to establish a precedent for this.) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Boot CD.  Sandstein  21:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BootCD[edit]

BootCD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. Clearly advertisement. Recommend deletion and redirection to boot CD. Fleet Command (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 22:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as questionable for the applicable software notability and also Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I managed to find only one article about this application (on CNET, from 2009 [12]), so WP:GNG is clearly not satisfied. At best, this can be mentioned in some sort of list of bootable CD software (oh wait, it already is). Indrek (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty uncontroversial merge/redirect target here. The lack of references probably indicates that inclusion on the listicle Indrek pointed out suffices here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unikkatil[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Unikkatil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources. Google News search returns nothing reliable. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best because, unless convincing local coverage can be found, this is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:27, 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. Michig (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turf Season[edit]

Turf Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. A non-notable show. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 17:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not sure this passes GNG. The show hasn't even started and the only sourced elements in the article are unrelated to the show and are concerned more with the efforts being made by Nigerians to gain professional football contracts abroad. COuld be notable as the series progresses, but I don't think it is now. Fenix down (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user:Fenix down, you do have a point. but how can we improve the article. we are all here to collaborate. I'm new here and I think the show is a great idea that's why i'm voting we edit and keep it. Kindly share your thoughts. Thanks. Regards. Donp07 (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should show reliable sources in the article that show discussion of the show per GNG. Per WP:TVSHOW, as (I presume) a nationally broadcast show, it is likely that the programme is notable, but such programmes are not inherently notable and need to show significant media coverage. As such, I feel that at the moment this programme is not notable, though it could be if you can show significant coverage by third parties prior to broadcast. The show may well become notable during or after its broadcast if it receives such coverage then. However, I feel at the moment this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks user:Fenix down for your insightful comments and analysis. I'll certainly look forward to improving it soon. You've been very helpful so far. Thanks. Donp07 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If the article is deleted and you think that it may become useful in future, you can request that an admin restores it to your userspace for you to work on as you try to show GNG. Once you feel you have achieved this you can move the article back to the mainspace or, if you want others opinion on it prior to this you can use WP:AFC. I'm not an expert on TV show notability, but am happy to opine on the usefulness of sources if you wish. It would be best to do that on my talk page though to avoid cluttering up this discussion! Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:25, 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 and redirect to Multiven.  Sandstein  22:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Alfred-Adekeye[edit]

@ Wikicology (Olatunde Isaac), SwisterTwister and MelanieN - I beg to differ with your deletion because this is an article about a successful African technology entrepreneur and role-model that has been at the forefront of advocating for the freedom of the very Internet infrastructure upon which wikipedia resides. This is a story that needs to be heard and for you to purport that it is not ‘notable’ clearly shows you either didn’t read the article or you are not unbiased. You are more than welcome to help improve it. re-instating it.

Peter Alfred-Adekeye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. CEOs are not generally cosidered notable Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I encountered this at NPP and planned to nominate because this is currently questionable for all applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Multiven, the company of which he is CEO. It appears that the company is notable but he is not. This bio article is poorly sourced and full of puffery. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soohyun Park[edit]

Soohyun Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Any claim to notability here relates to the subject winning a national spelling bee as a child. Arguably falls foul of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For added bonus, the "references" here are a press release from the spelling bee's organizers, and a deadlink of a single news article. Agreed that this is a WP:BLP1E — there's no discernible reason why she'd still be a topic that people are actually still looking for almost a decade later, and the referencing is not strong enough to get her over WP:GNG. Admittedly a consensus was once established that winners of national spelling bees were eligible for Wikipedia articles — but BLP1E didn't exist yet when that happened, and given that evolution in our policies I'm not seeing how it could possibly survive the collision with BLP1E as things stand now. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - creating Wikipedia articles on someone based on their being a precocious child creates unfair expectations on them if they grow up to be anything less than the next Fred Koch or Terence Tao. Blythwood (talk) 01:40, 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. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bong-Ra[edit]

Bong-Ra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks in-depth, significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The closest it got was this three-sentence biography in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. No other sources to use from its articles on other language Wikipedias. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 15:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 16:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better convincing Dutch sources can be found as this current article is currently still questionable for the applicable notability and the Dutch Wiki has nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:21, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article can be restored by an administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xanopticon[edit]

Xanopticon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks in-depth, significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The closest it got was listings in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 15:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 15:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:21, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mawlana Rumi Review[edit]

Mawlana Rumi Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Checked to see if WP:GNG was a possibility. I'm not seeing any writing about this journal in the usual places. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R James Healy[edit]

R James Healy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author deleted WP:PROD tag, so now I'm submitting this to AfD. Non-notable VFX artist, fails WP:ARTIST. Only claim to significance is a few small awards and works that appeared at a handful of festivals. Did some googling and couldn't find any further information or sources that would reasonably establish more notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 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 no consensus. Considering that the nominator was blocked for this nomination, it's difficult to consider their view a good faith assessment of notability, and there is too little discussion by others to establish consensus. Can still be editorially merged or redirected if desired and if there's editorial consensus for that.  Sandstein  22:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitelcom[edit]

Vitelcom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of sources. No notability as no books and no newspaper talking about this brand. Pizzole (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator removed the sources from the article and complained here of "lack of sources". I've reinstated the sources without any comment on their suitability for determining notability, and I offer no opinion on whether the article should be deleted or kept. I have also blocked the nominator for continuing with personal attacks in retaliation for having one of their articles nominated at AFD, after a previous block for the same thing expired. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge - I created this article about 10 years ago when the company was creating a bit of a stir with the Grundig Mobile brand (which has its own article). It could be merged with Grundig Mobile or perhaps both those articles could be merged into Grundig (although they were only ever a licensed brand). I do note that I recently nominated an article by Pizzole for deletion. Here are a couple of additional references:
  1. http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/16/grundig-launches-cellphone-business-with-vitelcom/
  2. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1036567/o2-to-source-spanish-handsets
Shritwod (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poor sources, no clear indication of notability. The nomination should not be judged on the behavior of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:15, 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  22:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Society[edit]

Campus Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not prove notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the founder is also questionable for solid notability, this company simply seems too soon and thr coversge is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:14, 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. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Hours[edit]

Ivory Hours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC -- the strongest thing here is that they won a local radio station's "Next Big Thing" contest last year. Their music is all self-released on Bandcamp, so having three titles in their discography doesn't satisfy NMUSIC #5. And the sourcing here doesn't get them over WP:GNG, either: of the six references, three are primary sources (their own Bandcamp, their own EPK on CBC Music's "any band gets to repost their own EPK" section, and the website of the radio station that hosted the contest), one is a Q&A interview (which would be acceptable for confirmation of facts after GNG had already been met, but cannot be a bringer of GNG as it represents the band talking about itself), and one is a "local band wins radio station contest" article in their own hometown newspaper (again, acceptable for confirmation of facts after GNG has been passed but not contributing to GNG because of the "own hometown" problem.) Exclaim! (which the creator amusingly misspelled as Explaim) is the only source here that counts toward GNG, but one source cannot carry GNG all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing around it is bad. Delete as WP:TOOSOON, without prejudice against recreation in the future if their notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps for now as it is currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:13, 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. Potential redirect target article also deleted.  Sandstein  22:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Ajami[edit]

Rashid Ajami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No verifiable claims of importance. This article was a copy-paste move from a declined draft located at Draft:Rashid Ajami. CSD tag continuously removed, brining to AfD. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has enough sources from media to be notable. The release discography shows releases on top record labels in this music genre. The artist collaborations are with artists notable enough to be on Wikipedia. The article should not be deleted in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.50 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited this article and since its initial request for deletion numerous sources have been added that are more then notable. Notice that the discography is fully cited. There are sufficient references for this article to be in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhollinge (talk • contribs) 10:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks likely that sockpuppetry was used to remove the speedy tag. Notability per WP:MUSICBIO is borderline, and many of the references are about Campus Society (now also the subject of an AFD) and not Ajami. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added further links from press outlets such as Mixmag, vice magazine, thump and deep house Amsterdam. These are the biggest outlets in terms of house music. The article has come a long way since its initial draft that Anarchyte mentions above. There are references on every point and a long list of news pieces in external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhollinge (talk • contribs) 08:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best for now as the current article is not better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Campus Society; he is not separately notable. If the Campus Society article is kept, a redirect is appropriate; if the Campus Society article gets deleted, the redirect will too. --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am also willing for a redirect especially if both articles are later deleted. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China India Institute[edit]

China India Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure promotion bombarded with namedrops and passing mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to prove the notability. Mr RD 19:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:11, 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 redirect to Kolkata-class destroyer. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

INS Kolkata Class Destroyer Ship Electrical System[edit]

INS Kolkata Class Destroyer Ship Electrical System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-encyclopedic article of a single technical system of a naval ship. Content may be merged to Kolkata-class destroyer, but I doubt it'll contribute much there either. Tupsumato (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:10, 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. Michig (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terrain Exhibitions[edit]

Terrain Exhibitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable art space. I can't find sufficient sources to establish any notability. Of the four citations on the article, three are small Chicago-local blogs that don't really establish any notability, and the other is a Chicago Tribune article that makes the briefest mention of Terrain Exhibitions at the very end. Searching myself, the only potential other source I found was this, a Chicago Tribune article focused on Terrain Exhibitions. With just that one article, I don't there's enough to sufficiently establish notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. no evidence of significant notability DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Local place with expected local coverage which could be acceptable but it's still not as convincingly notable as it could be. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamic texts[edit]

List of Islamic texts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Category:Religious texts: “Religious texts, also known as scripture, are the texts which various religious traditions consider to be sacred…”.

This article falsely lists general works such as translations of the Qur’an, tafsir (exegesis), biographies and hadith collections as “Islamic texts”.

The alternative is to redirect to the existing Islamic holy books article, which correctly lists Islam’s holy books (to Muhammad, and to other prophets). Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Islamic texts seems to be a general term and if the nominator doesn't like the exact way it's being interpreted here, that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson:, it is my understanding that the so called "general" books would belong to Category:Islamic literature, whereas the more specialized Category:Islamic texts would cover Islam's holy books: the Qur'an, Torah, Injil, Zabur and other sacred books considered to be divine. Let me know if you disagree. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to neglect part two of the definition given at Category:Religious texts: "...or of central importance to their religious tradition." The things you call "general works" are covered by part two of that definition, at least in mainstream Islam. But even without that, it seems rather odd to base your rationale on a definition from a Wikipedia category page. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperGaruda:: In what way are the translations of the Qur'an/tafsir/asbab al-nuzul considerd to be of "central importance to the Islamic tradition"? Even within the Sunni tradition, it is quite false to claim that the Al-Tabari's monumental tafsir is of "central importance" to Islam. Hence the problem with this article as it currently stands. It is simply a list of Islamic genres that has no end. What prevents me from adding the works of Qira'at to the list now?
Basing it on the parent category, it is my understanding that Islamic texts here refers to either (1) "sacred" books (Qur'an, Torah, Injil, Zabur, Abraham's suhuf) or (2) works of "central importance" (I would assume they are those mentioned under Sources of sharia#Primary sources). Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Al-Andalusi: I understand what you are trying to say, but it is all based on what some editor thought would be a nice definition for a Wikipedia category, without mentioning any sources for that definition. While I myself have a bias against list articles for which there are no sources, people kept telling me that "it is for navigational purposes, so it's okay that it is basically WP:SYNTHESIS" (see last part of WP:LISTN). I still do not agree, because we've got categories for that purpose, but who is to argue with non-written norms... In this case, List of Islamic texts serves as an annotated navigational list of lists of texts about Islam, written by Muslims (i.e. Islamic texts). If the entries in these lists are not texts or not Islamic, then what are they? - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:07, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John McNaught[edit]

John McNaught (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Full disclosure, I'm the original creator here -- in 2005, when our notability and sourcing rules were very different than they are now. But both WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG have been tightened up considerably over the past decade, and my own sense of what's suitable for inclusion and what isn't has evolved alongside them -- but under the standards that apply today, there's just not enough substance here beyond "he existed", and I just did a ProQuest search and found that save for his obituary and some glancing namechecks in coverage of his ex-wife, he's not the subject of enough media coverage to add anything more than we already have. So it was acceptable by the standards of 2005 -- but by the standards of 2016, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard topic to decide on. One the one hand, he clearly fails GNG by my Google search, but that is mainly because he is from a less digital era and many references (especially media) would not be available at this point. That said, I feel that an argument can be made to keep the article based on WP:CREATIVE point three, on the basis that he created a well-known body of work at the time with his various news and journal articles (non-academic). It is difficult to judge the impact that he had this far after the fact, but I think that overall the page is worth keeping. Ajraddatz (Talk) 08:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:06, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ejikeme Alozie-Nwagboso[edit]

Ejikeme Alozie-Nwagboso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Candidate but no indication or source that I can find which says he won the seat Uhooep (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Candidates for office are not automatically eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that they were already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of their candidacy, then they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the election. So if we can't find properly sourced evidence that he won the seat, and there's no other real claim of notability even present here at all, then he just doesn't get an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:05, 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 no consensus. Trending to keep.  Sandstein  22:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Noiseam[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ad Noiseam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks in-depth, significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The closest it got was listings and a brief description in a custom Google search of reliable music sources—not nearly enough for a full article. The last AfD said to use sources from the frwp article: that would be a dead article from Igloo magazine (unclear reliability) and an interview from a patently unreliable source. Someone also mentioned the number of people on the roster—few are actually notable and most are redlinks or links to unrelated pages. All in all, the source coverage just isn't here. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 16:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 16:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As User:Czar has said, article has no independent sources, as the only one has fallen to WP:Link Rot, and as such I am of the opinion it should be deleted.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tentatively saying keep. We tend to keep record label articles if the label has multiple independently notable bands, and I've found at least one that passes that bar so far, Dälek. I'm going to look into the others and see what I can find. —Torchiest talkedits 13:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at best for now and the only other option I would say is to Draft and Userfy but it seems this article may be notable enough to be accepted, even if it's actually questionable for the sources. It may be fitting to say this is not as serious for deletion as compared to other articles. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're at the three week mark and in the absence of evidence otherwise, we have insufficient policy-backed rationale to keep this article. It's not just that the sourcing is questionable—even if it wasn't, there is not nearly enough sourcing to write an article (the point of the general notability guideline) and there is no claim to pass the corp guidelines. @SwisterTwister czar 14:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Torchiest and SwisterTwister, did you find anything else? czar 13:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've found enough reliable sources to create an article for another group on the label, Drumcorps. Still looking for more. —Torchiest talkedits 15:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scorn is another group that's independently notable, so that's at least three. —Torchiest talkedits 15:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Raoul Sinier is also notable on his own. I'm pretty confident there must be others at this point, so I'm feeling more comfortable with my keep. —Torchiest talkedits 15:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in light of the work put forth by Torchiest. Now appears to pass the notability requirements for labels.Onel5969 TT me 16:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969, what notability requirement for labels are you referencing? My understanding is that there is none and that all the keep votes above are despite having no sources on the label itself (and notability is not inherited...) czar 18:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The one source in the article looks good. One of the external links is a second interview with the label's founder. Here's a third interview with the founder. Here's a brief profile of the label. Here's a fourth interview with the founder. —Torchiest talkedits 20:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But those aren't reliable sources—the two interviews are coming from sites of no reputation, and I'm unable to find any proof that Pietro Da Sacco's Igloo mag has any sort of standing as more than a hobbyist site. And the major point of this thread is that there is no "record label notability guideline", only CORP and the GNG. czar 00:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am willing to restore or userfy the article if someone can find some reliable sources. MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norma del Rosario[edit]

Norma del Rosario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of this article is not notable enough. VRtrooper (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is a hard one. Given how she was a silent film actress, coverage would probably be almost impossible to find. I would normally !vote "Delete" right now, but given the circumstances, perhaps it would be more appropriate if sources are first sought from offline sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My sweeps of Philippine news did not find anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep had the lead in 6 feature films,and second or third billing in 4 others, therefore passes notability guidelinesAtlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:05, 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Bhatt[edit]

Rajesh Bhatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References given are not standard. Rotten tomato webpage has no support for the person but it is listed as a reference. Prof TPMS (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page says that Rajesh Bhatt got doctorate from "Halifax University, USA". But there is no Halifax University in USA. --Prof TPMS (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi editor,

Plz consider those all below mentioned facts. 1-I have submitted enough credible source. The person is shortlisted for prestigious cannans film festival. Isn't it an achievement to be considered. 2- In India, around the year of 2005-06, there were not enough online newspaper. We have enough news coverage in vernacular languages about this subject which we can't submit. This number can be over 500 but we can't extract the link. Also he has directed 5 movies, assisted more than 50 movies, produce 5, directed many TV serials and video albums. His movie is KAUN HAI JO SAPNO MEIN AAYA already has a wikipedia page. So can you plz tell me what sort of credible reference are you looking for or you are being unnecessarily biased and arbitrarily using your wikipedia editor privileges. 3-All movie directors are not on rotten tomato. Also we have removed the rotten tomato link although this link belong to the particular subject. 4-Also, if you have any suggestion, plz leave us before considering it for deletion. Also let us know do you accept vernacular coverage in Indian language. 5-Halifax College doctorate certificate-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdnt (talk • contribs) 08:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC) 6-A couple of vernacular coverages are included below, including leading vernacular magazines which have given the cover story for him on front page. please have a look before passing the judgment.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unable to find any non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources. Most of the sources cited in the article are spam-ish blogs. Among the rest, a couple make a passing mention of the subject. [13] does't even mention him. utcursch | talk 01:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Only one of the sources was usable, this review from IndiaGlitz. The others are all blogs, primary, or otherwise unsuitable as RS on Wikipedia. I also have to agree - to my knowledge there's no Halifax University in the United States that awards doctorates. The only college with Halifax in its name that I can find (in the United States) is Halifax Community College, which most assuredly does not award doctorates. I also have to note that the film article for Kaun Hai Jo Sapno Mein Aaya needs some cleanup since it was trying to cite user reviews as the RT meter. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've temporarily blocked the article creator for repeatedly removing the AfD tags and I've redirected the film article to the director's page. I can't find anything to establish notability per NFILM, not even while using the India WP's search engine. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cleaned out all of the sources except for the IG source - I have no problem with the material being re-added if they can be backed with reliable sources. However I need to stress that none of the removed sources are reliable and one of the sources seems to claim something that's (so far) provably false - that Bhatt received a doctorate from a college that doesn't exist in the United States. In the article it's being used to claim that he received a doctorate from Halifax University in the UK, however the source does claim an entirely different continent, so it cannot be used to back that claim. Pretty much anything from Bhatt himself needs to be viewed with some suspicion given the claims about the university, unfortunately. 05:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soledad Aquino[edit]

Soledad Aquino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article's subject is not notable enough VRtrooper (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Impossible to find any sources, especially since the name is shared by so many. All of the movies are articless as well, which never bodes well. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep had lead in 4 films, 2nd or 3rd billing in 3 others. There are less Phillipine film articles than many other countries.Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- It is impossible to find any relible sources to strenghten her article's notability. Supergabbyshoe (talk2me) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and simply doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 16:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR due to lack of participation. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 00:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aftershock Festival[edit]

Aftershock Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

SPA who is an employee of the promotion company has offered WP:ROUTINE coverage of the festival. Half appear to be rehashing of press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Big enough festival to be included. Plenty of coverage from local news sources and enough from further afield to establish notability. Current sourcing and possible COI have no bearing on notability. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanaryan[edit]

Rihanaryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NFF as a film that has not yet commenced principal photography—or, alternately, per WP:GNG as the only coverage I can find is its own social media presence. —  Rebbing  talk  00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  01:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  01:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Filming hasn't begun and no coverage in reliable sources found. Search hits lead to social networking and Wikipedia mirror sites. Fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Student films are almost never notable, and there's nothing to indicate that this is one of the very few exceptions. Delete. —Cryptic 08:14, 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. Michig (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Paulett[edit]

John Paulett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Only claims to significance are winning a few non-notable awards (Golden Apple Award has the most citations -- it's given to ten Chicago high school teachers every year), writing a non-notable book (two citations -- one is an article that talks about Paulett for just a sentence or two, the other is an incorrect link, but it seems to be referring to a blog's review that wouldn't really establish notability), and co-founding a questionably-notable art project space. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. The reviews & other sources are not sufficiently substantial for the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better at all. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The book authorship looks a more likely avenue for notability than the redlinked teaching award, but one local review [14] isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not quite enough to satisfy either Author or the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep – This, quite frankly, is the most ridiculous deletion request I've ever seen. The article was only just created on Friday, and will have more information over the next two months during the buildup to the album release. Billboard Man (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7/27 (album)[edit]

7/27 (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs, no categories, a short article. 333-blue 02:41, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 00:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slow living[edit]

Slow living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Puff piece based on differently-reliable sources, mainly comprised of quotes from proponents. No actual evidence of encyclopaedic importance. Precious little evidence it's even a thing, to be honest. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's clearly a thing as there are multiple books written about it. The worst case would be a merger with some similar concept such as simple living. Andrew D. (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems rather redundant to Slow movement (culture). I don't understand why there are so many breakout articles on this culture. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect tot hat article would be fine. The issue seems to be exactly as you describe: loads of tiny articles based on crap sources describing fractional nuances of something.Guy (Help!) 09:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep it is a very well documented concept, that ought to be teased out, as a distinct school of thought. The movement article is a bit too ambitious, and really needs work, but is certainly notable. Sadads (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it can pass basic draft standards. Keep Sorry, but the article looks like only a sandbox very first scratching. If it is notable and 'has multiple books written about it' as per Davidson and 'is is very well documented' as per Sadads, the it should be easy to fix up. Can either @Andrew Davidson: or @Sadads: fix it? Aoziwe (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I could easily improve this article but it's not a priority as it already has plenty of content. Our editing policy is to retain such articles rather than deleting them:

    Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

Andrew D. (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep you are right. But the article comes across as so un encyclopedic in style. It really does need a style fix urgently. I might give it a go if I get the time in the next week or so. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — what a dreadful, dreadful article. Yes, the subject is a thing, but best blow it up and start over per WP:TNT: "if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value, [and] people tend to be more inclined to fill red links." Bishonen | talk 12:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep – The topic comfortably passes WP:GNG per a review of available online sources. Entire books are devoted to the topic. North America1000 00:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Delete - I think nobody is arguing against notability here, it is rather the form and content that is... questionable and I find myself agreeing with the WP:TNT approach. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems appropriate to take it slow with this topic...  Sandstein  20:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is a very legitimate subject matter and while may need some editing, shouldn't be thrown out.--CaligirlTay89 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think form can be fixed. Edit but don't delete. --Jimhorts (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: CaligirlTay89 and Jimhorts are  Confirmed sock puppets.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a well known topic, we might even probably already have an article for it under a different name, I don't know if Simple living is it. Just because we personally dislike some topics doesn't mean they haven't been written about countless times, ad nauseam some would say, but that makes them noteworthy.SatansFeminist (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article looks like some kind of advertisement, but it is notable, per the book sources. Esquivalience t 01:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Craig, G. & Parkins, W. (2006). Slow living. Manhattan, NY: Berg Publishers.
  • Honore, C. (2004). In praise of slow: how a worldwide movement is challenging the cult of speed. Toronto, ON, Canada: Random House.
  • Possibly related: Nathan, W. (2015). The Kinfolk home: interiors for slow living. Manhattan, NY: Ouur.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eddsworld[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eddsworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. The article was previously nominated for deletion in 2011 with no consensus and "everyone seems to agree the article needs further improvement". That improvement has not happened, nor is it possible. The lone reliable third-party source given in the article, The Guardian, devotes less than one sentence to Eddsworld. That's not enough to write an article about the show, and other sources I found provided no greater level of detail. Huon (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As noted in the previous AfD, the vast majority of the sources aren't reliable or passing mentions. The previous AfD mentioned a BBC feature of some sort on this subject, but it doesn't seem to have been provided. I can't find it in my own searches. As Huon points out, the improvements have not happened. Chrisw80 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the article about the show's creator at best. This is a great show by a person who unfortunately passed away at a very young age (hope he enjoys having a lot of coke and bacon in heaven), but the notability of the show is very questionable. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 01:06, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_February_27&oldid=1142622922"