Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 February	6 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Web operating system[edit]

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

This article seems to be an OR/synthesis of a bunch of different things which have been called "WebOS" (even if they have little in common beyond that name), web desktops / webtops (which aren't actually operating systems at all, even if they are sometimes called them), and tangential links between other OSs and the web SJK (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or disambiguate, per above. MB298 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with disambiguating, is some of the things the article mentions which are called "WebOS" are arguably non-notable. For example, the mid-1990s "WebOS" research project at UC Berkeley ref - even though one may be able to find a few peer-reviewed publications writing this up, I would argue that research projects are non-notable unless they are particularly influential in their field of study, and there is no evidence this particular project meets that bar. Someone has just gone looking for everything they could find called "WebOS" or "Web operating system" and crammed it together in an article, without thought to whether those things are individually notable or have anything much in common beyond their name. SJK (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SJK: the influence of the Berkeley WebOS project should not be too hard to establish from the "WebOS%3A+Operating+System+Services+for+Wide+Area+Applications" 200+ papers citing it. Why not merge selectively to Internet operating system? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyus: I'm not opposed to mentioning WebOS in an appropriate place, however the merge target should be determined based on what WebOS actually was, not just based on superficial similarity of names. From my own reading of one of the papers [1], I think something like Grid computing would be a better target. Despite its name, WebOS wasn't actually an operating system per se, more a middleware layer that ran on top of an existing operating system to provide distributed computing services, similar in principle to Distributed Computing Environment or Project Athena – if you read the paper I cited, you discover that WebOS runs on top of Solaris 2.5.1. SJK (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 23:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a random description of things with a similar names does not make an article. Shritwod (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article itself indicates that it is a series of divergent usage examples of the words in adjacency, rather than a coherent concept; multiple dead and useless references; no yield on fresh search. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of chess players. MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chess player[edit]

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

Redundant article. Material is haphazard and has no coherent overall theme. All of the material is already better covered elsewhere on wikipedia, e.g. in the articles chess, List of chess players, Elo rating system, Chess in the arts, Computer chess. Article started as a redirect to List of chess players and that would seem the appropriate action now. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess players – agree with the nomination, particularly about having no coherent overall theme, and given all of the content is covered elsewhere I think this should be a relatively uncontroversial decision. Aspirex (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aspirex's suggestion. The article is strangely put together and much of the existing content is better dealt with in standalone articles. /wiae /tlk 03:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - with a slight preference for redirecting to Chess rather than List of chess players. Could possibly restore the DAB version of the page, but I don't think that's really necessary and all in all I prefer a redirct. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - There is a need for an article about a "Chess Player". It answers the questions: What is a chess player? Redirecting the article to List of chess players is not answering this fundamental question for the reader. This article has the ability to expand over time, which is all that is required to keep it at Wikipedia. There should be a +tag "Keep and Expand" not delete. Many articles are linking to this article and many more will in the future. Instead of just having a list of players we should have an in-depth article. IQ125 (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IQ125: You wrote "It answers the questions: What is a chess player? Redirecting the article to List of chess players is not answering this fundamental question for the reader." I think that objection can be addressed by adding an additional sentence at the start of List of chess players, such as "A chess player is a person who plays chess." This directs the reader to the main article on chess, which covers practically everything which is currently in Chess player, with links to more detailed information at other articles such as Elo rating system, World chess championship, and Computer chess, as well as articles about individual players. I see that you've done a lot of work on the Chess player article and I can understand your not wanting this work to be wasted, but it doesn't make sense to duplicate information which is also in these other articles. I can see a need to give the reader a sense of which players are most important in the history of chess, but the place to do that is in the main Chess article. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess players - Most or all of the information given here is redundant, duplicating information given elsewhere. I'd like some time to go through it and make sure nothing significant is lost by doing this. For example, I see that Abu Bakr bin Yahya al-Suli, an important early player, isn't mentioned in the main Chess article. I disagree with what IQ125 has said about there being a need for such an article, but if other articles are linking to Chess player those links need to be changed. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and frankly I don't see anything worth saving. For the specific example that I cited of Abu Bakr bin Yahya al-Suli, he was actually a player of shatranj rather than chess. A reader starting with Chess and wanting to know more about its origins would find a reference to Shatranj, which mentions a player named "As-Suli" with a link to the Abu Bakr bin Yahya al-Suli article (I'm not sure why there is a discrepancy between the names al-Suli and As-Suli). I've verified that the main Chess article mentions, either directly or in some cases indirectly through the World Chess Championship article, all the players and subjects mentioned in Chess player. In a few cases I found facts asserted in Chess player and not elsewhere, such as the claim that Howard Staunton was born in Westmoreland, England, but because of the lack of citations in Chess player it would be difficult to verify this information so that it can be incorporated into the other articles. If Chess player is replaced with a redirect to List of chess players the article in its current form will still be available to anyone who wants to pursue that project. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess players per arguments already presented. To the extent this article is about chess players, it looks to draw from content that already exists at other articles as well as tangential subjects like Elo. As chess is a game between two players, this article makes it clear that just about anything that has to do with chess could also be framed as being about chess players. All that said, I do think there's potential for an article about the archetypal chess player, drawing from demographics, psychological studies, chess players in art/literature, etc. to paint a picture of the personality/characteristics/perceptions of a chess player. But that's a different project than what's going on here now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect though I'm concerned that have been no WP policy or guideline based reasons given for deletion, redirection, nor keep and that the arguments people are using fall into WP:ATA. I started thinking about ways to improve the article but for each improvement I saw that it would work better to improve the chess or list of chess players articles. It would also break up the flow of the main chess article to move player-oriented sections such as "Pre-modern", "Modern", "Titles and rankings", "Psychology", "Chess and intelligence", and "Competitive play" sections out of that article into this one. Chess as mental training can be merged into the article but also works well as a standalone subject referenced by the main chess article. FWIW, a search of WP articles with player in the title found rugby player, football player and player (game). None of those three gave me inspiration to keep the chess player article. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted Talk:Lists of occupations/Archives/2012. It turns out WP has quite a few articles that are similar to chess player. Maybe the problem is the article does not quite have the same zip as pornographic film actor? I may reconsider my earlier delete/redirect. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc Kupper: In terms of Wikipedia policy, WP:MERGEREASON gives "Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap" as a reason to merge articles. However, as far as I can see, all the information in Chess player already exists in Chess or other chess-related articles, with the exception of some assertions (such as Howard Staunton's birthplace) for which no source is given. If any information currently in Chess player can be usefully moved to other chess-related articles then changing it to a redirect can be considered a merge. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry4Ever, I'd be fine with the AFD being closed with any of the WP:MERGEREASONs available as #2, 3, and 4 all apply though weakly. #2 Overlap appears to be more about an entire article. WP allows and supports, using {{Main article}}, summarizing article content from one article in another. This article is an odd one in that it seems to be constructed entirely of summaries. I believe the question we should be asking of ourselves is if there's anything we can say about "chess player" that can't be better said in one of the other articles we have about chess? If the answer is "yes" then chess player would be a viable stand-alone subject.

In looking at WP:DEL-REASON none of them jump out as being applicable to this article. There's a weak case for WP:DEL5 (WP:CONTENTFORKING) as this article has no original content (other than Howard Staunton's birthplace). While the article fails to show that the topic passes WP:Notability I don't think WP:DEL8 would be grounds per what's documented at Chess#Psychology and Chess#Chess and intelligence plus the data supporting the Chess as mental training article. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as unlikely a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 10 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhaven Press[edit]

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

Reason Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC) I nominate this page for deletion because it has not been supported with reliable sources since 2007[2], and all sources now are WP:SELFPUB or failed verification. Nothing external supports it except a FreeLibrary.com page with title only (no text). In its current state, with current magniflorious text, the page stands as a false attestation of notability. If no notability has been found in past 9 years (possibly more), it is time to delete it. I put a nomination for deletion on the page, but it was reverted by ScrapIronIV (talk · contribs), with only the note: "Deprod, for cause". ScrapIronIV did not improve the page to justify its existence.[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NEXIST Greenhaven Press is a publisher of secondary and college curriculum books, and is a part of the Gale group that was acquired by Cengage Learning in 2007. Greenhaven Press still has an official website. Barnes&Noble website lists 119 titles they sell from Greenhaven Press. Amazon sells literally hundreds of titles from Greenhaven Press. This is a legitimate educational publisher. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator should read WP:BEFORE. Publishers of school textbooks are not self published. There is no requirement for an editor to improve or justify the existence of an article in order to deprod, particularly such an obvious keep. It is incumbent upon the nominator to actually look for sources before nomination. This publisher has "5,417 works / 823 ebooks published between 1821 & 2014" per Openlibrary.org - which is found without even opening a single article in a Google search. Scr★pIron^IV 01:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Please note that the company is not nominated for deletion -- only the article, which at this time meets none of the standards for inclusion in the Encyclopedia. Right now it has no support. Note: a company's statements about itself on its own web page are WP:SELFPUB regardless of the nature of its products. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NEXIST as suggested by — Maile recommended above. After you do, I would recommend that you withdraw this nomination for the sake of your credibility. Scr★pIron^IV 01:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gale group? Makes it intrinsically notable as an imprint thereof. Numerous books published. Named as publisher in over one hundred Wikipedia articles. The unfortunate misuse of the SPS dictum is troubling - there is no reason to believe any claims are "unduly self-serving" here at all. By the way, wondrous superfluity of adjectives as a "causa deletionis" does not impress most editors here who have read and opined on hundreds of AfDs as a rule. Collect (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the page title before commenting, please. It often enhances relevance. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~DELETE~~ In the alternative: Make a redirect to the Gale Group instead. Greenhaven does not exist as a separate entity. It is only an imprint, not an entity or separate existence. It is like having separate pages for Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens. The page right right now is shell with no support. If you want to tell the separate history of Greenhaven before it was gobbled, that might justify a separate page. But it has no history now -- it is just a tombstone ad. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the person nominating any article for deletion does not also !vote as well. Many publisher imprints have separate articles as they generally have distinct histories, frequently under three or more distinct owners. In order to accommodate them all, we could have one monster publisher article, but practice here has been to have articles for each imprint, rather than having every publisher which has held that imprint being combined into one single article with every imprint belonging to any overlapping publisher being included. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On what authority are you asserting that Greenhaven has overlapping ownership? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gale has at least the following imprints - Blackbirch, Charles Scribner's Sons, Christian Large Print, Five Star, Graham & Whiteside, Greenhaven ·and more than a dozen more. It purchased Greenhaven in 2000, which means Greenhaven had different ownership for thirty years. Thompson Publishing which owns a number of imprints not contained in Gale, including many publications about government regulations etc. purchased Gale in 1985, and has an interesting history in its own. Thomson sold Thomson Learning (including Gale) in 2007, which is now Cengage Learning. In short - a veritable arachnophile's delight in structure. With likely far more than one hundred Wikipedia articles related to its associated firms (far more than the bare list used for Gale alone). Clearer? Collect (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should spend your time editing the article with all your newfound knowledge instead of stalking me. That would be the WP way. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I stalk no one ... if you look at my AfD count, it is quite notable, indeed (roughly 644 - of which I !voted keep about 45%, delete about 45%, and 10% other - of the ones I !voted "keep" on, about 80% were kept, of my Delete !votes, about 70% were deleted - "no consensus" defaults to "keep"). Cheers - but a person with 644 AfDs in his past is unlikely to "stalk" anyone there for a single AfD. Collect (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable publisher with many works. As noted already, the nominator does not get a !vote and should strike it or changes to a Comment. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as this seems convincingly notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 12 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) 00:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Azeem Aziz[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage from reliable sources of an "Ameen Aziz" or "Azeem Aziz" anywhere, aside from this name-check. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR. /wiae /tlk 23:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: there is this old piece from Tulsa World. /wiae /tlk 23:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better convinces WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 00:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Curro2 (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough. Imams exist all over the place so being one doesn't make you notable. Saheeh Info 06:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Also, it appears that the person who created the article already tried to create it before but it was speedily deleted. Check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ameen_Aziz. Saheeh Info 15:37, 12 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 Userfy to Captain Assassin! as requested. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Fukuhara[edit]

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

As per WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. Kailash29792 (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no signs of any better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move it to my userspace or draftspace until film releases or actress gets more notable credits. We already did this to User:Captain Assassin!/Kennedi Clements. It would be better to move it to draft so everyone can freely contribute the article. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Userfy as requested in case the young actress becomes more notableAtlantic306 (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wasn't aware that 'draftify' or 'userfy' were valid options. It would seem that this would hang in limbo on CA's page until the actor picked up at least one or two more film/tv credits to justify an article - if that ever happens. It certainly isn't going to happen just because of one movie, and we're talking years. There's preparation, and then there's wishful thinking. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As concerns Kulua. No consensus here regarding Arabuli; that article may be renominated separately. Sandstein 12:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Kulua[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Giorgi Kulua subject has not played in top league yet, Keep Bachana Arabuli subject has played in a top league match. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Geogian top flight is not confirmed as fully pro (see WP:FPL), so playing in it does not confer notability under WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik It's not that I do not believe you but the Georgian league does not appear in the professional or non-professional leagues on WP:FPL. While this is meaning less here is also the first sentence of the Umaglesi Liga league article:

"The Umaglesi Liga (Georgian: უმაღლესი ლიგა) is the top division of professional football in Georgia."

Thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That is because WP:FPL is an inclusive list based on consensus, a league is considered non-FPL by default until consensus is achieved otherwise and it is placed on the list. The non-FPL list is essentially a courtesy to users indicating where leagues have been definitively shown to be non-FPL. Fenix down (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both perhaps as they are still questionably solid. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's several years since I gave up editing Wikipedia regularly with a user id, and the fact that people are still using this ridiculous "fully professional league" requirement to judge notability of football players only confirms that I was right to give up. Can anyone really justify why a player in the top division in Georgia should be considered less notable than someone who has come on as an injury-time substitute in the fourth level of English football? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because a benchmark is needed for a subject-specific guideline and the notion of "fully professional leagues" is something which has gained consensus as the ability for a league to pay a professional salary to all players in all teams generally indicates that as there is sufficient interest in the competition to generate that level of cash that there is also logically going to be significant coverage of the competition to satisfy the demand from that interest.

Furthermore, this is simply a subject specific guideline. GNG trumps everything so any player, no matter how minor their career can warrant an article if they can be shown to satisfy GNG. In the instances above, not only do the players not play in a league of sufficient global standing, but they cannot be shown to have generated sufficient significant coverage to satisfy GNG, although I would accept that language barriers can often be unhelpful in establishing GNG in instances like this.

Finally, as is observed at this AfD players who initially satisfy WP:NFOOTY but do little to nothing else at a fully professional level still need to satisfy GNG, so you comment above comparing an injury-time substitute in the fourth level of English football to a player in the top division in Georgia is not really applicable as such instances are already dealt with. Fenix down (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Giorgi Kulua as WP:TOOSOON since he's in the team's reserve squad and doesn't meet WP:GNG at this stage. WP:FPL, however, specifically indicates that it is incomplete, and was so in regards to Georgian football; I've now updated it given this shows that UEFA considers the "Georgian Professional Football League" to be a "Premier Professional League" (though not belonging to the EPFL). This contains some info on Dinamo Tiblisi's player salaries. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 11:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your addition to WP:FPL, the correct way to proceed with a listing that is associated with a guideline is to gain consensus before adding. I'm not sure what the document is saying but it is not indicating full professionalism. Looking at the last round of matches, the attendances at these matches indicate a league that is still far below the level that would normally be associated with full professionalism:

MERANI MARTVILI VS DINAMO BATUMI 0-4 - att: 500

SABURTALO VS TORPEDO KUTAISI 4-4 - att: 500

SHUKURA VS DINAMO TBILISI 1-3 - att: 500

ZUGDIDI VS DILA 1-1 - att: 400

These are simply not the level of attendance that is associated with a league that is paying a viable salary to all players across the board. the footballgrad article further emphasises this with comments that most games are free to attend further indicating a structure that does not lend itself to full professionalism throughout the competition. Fenix down (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an invalid argument. Firstly I must point out that the attendance of the Shukura vs Dynamo Tbilisi match was 1000, not 500, but that is really beside the point. For most high-level football teams in most countries ticket sales are only a small percentage of revenue, with TV rights, sponsorships, shirt and other shop sales etc. providing the bulk of the revenue needed to pay the players. If we're to use this "fully professional league" requirement to judge notability then we should exclude the English Premier League, because when Wayne Rooney made his debut for Everton in that league he was an £80 per week trainee, well below the prevailing minimum wage and so not a full professional. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except in that instance we wouldn't as he would obviously have passed GNG, which is the crux of this argument: neither of these players do. Fenix down (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that logic is not one of your strong points. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you completely missed my point then. Regardless of his wage wide coverage of the player would have shown to the satisfaction of GNG that he was an individual who only played football and had no non football related income and was essentially a professional player at a club whose first team was fully professional. I suppose you also haven't read the first source for justifying the football league as an fpl by noting there is one part time player, which kind of makes your previous point irrelevant. Oh well. Fenix down (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Giorgi Kulua per WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. The only sources I found and what I see listed here are matches and simple statistics (like this page) - There's no secondary content that covers the person in-depth, and certainly no significant coverage on the person either. This article fails WP:GNG for those reasons. He also seems to fails WP:NFOOTY, but remember... there's WP:SPORTCRIT, which is very important to note (see my bold text): "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." - something I'm not seeing at all. Hence, I agree that the guidelines are not met, and I agree that this perhaps falls into WP:TOOSOON. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that ~~Giorgi Kulua~~ Bachana Arabuli has been in sorts, "stapled", onto this AFD discussion. I have not looked into the notability of this person and won't vote on this article here; because this article has generated "Keep"/"Delete" votes on both sides and with discussion, I believe that it should have a full AFD thread. If there is one (or if one is created), please let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you probably mean that Bachana Arabuli has been "stapled" to this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Yes I did. Thanks for pointing that out. I copied the wrong wikilink. Fixed! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. This purported ABS-CBN does not exist. Shirt58 (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dating Crush[edit]

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

WP:TVSHOW says notability is presumed for shows on national networks, but I can find no evidence that this show actually existed. There are no references, no dates, and neither the show nor its cast members appear in imdb. The reverter of my PROD commented that "imdb is not the world," and I totally agree, but some references are required for verifiability. ubiquity (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The Master Sock Puppet as Creative raymark even the username promotional. Oripaypaykim (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even though I did the "imbd is not the world" it stills seems incredibly lacking GNG. 96.237.20.21 (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not even any minimal signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, if it's not speedied G5. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 06:23, 6 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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Atmapriyananda[edit]

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

Non-notable education administrator. Article was deleted twice before but was recently restored when a reference was provided. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I thought, as a Vice Chancellor, this would be notable. Delete perhaps unless it can be shown this is a notable enough university where the Vice Chancellor is also going to be notable, I'm inviting DGG for better analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vice-chancellor is head of a university in UK-dervived systems. That's considered notable for any significant university, not just famous ones. DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG's invocation of WP:PROF#C6 -- I think that a government-established university almost anywhere has come to have the status of "major institution" for C6. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:43, 12 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) 00:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R.H. Brotherhood[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable only as the mayor of a village not large enough to confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. The sourcing here is entirely to passing mentions in publications of the local historical societies, so WP:GNG has not been met. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sufficient indication of notability. Curro2 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Bearcat.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 11 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) 00:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.H. Miller[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable only as the mayor of a village not large enough to confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. The only source here is a blurb, only just barely any longer than our article is, on the website of the Manitoba Historical Society -- which means that WP:GNG has not been met either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as R.H. Brotherhood. Curro2 (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 10 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 Mardi gras. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laissez les bon temps rouler[edit]

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

Nothing more than a dictionary definition. Violates Wikipedia:NOTDICTIONARY. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mardi gras. Curro2 (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as unlikely a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't been able to find a Wikipedia article that would make sense as the target of a redirect because none of the likely targets (Mardi Gras, Cajuns, Cajun Music, Cajun cuisine, New Orleans, etc.) contains the term, leaving someone unfamiliar with it at a confusing dead end if they are redirected to any of those. What about redirecting to the Wiktionary definiton: Laissez le bon temps rouler, which by the way has the phrase as laissez les bons temps rouler? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary - like Laissez les bons temps rouler already/currently is. DexDor^(talk) 20:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 12 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) 00:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Thompson[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as the mayor of a village not large enough to confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL, which is not sourced well enough to get him over WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 10 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) 00:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Cushing[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable only as the mayor of a village and a rural municipality, not large enough to confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. The sole "source" here is the simple presence of his name in a list of the mayors of the rural municipality, which means WP:GNG has not been met either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Curro2 (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 10 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) 00:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.H. Hennan[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biography of a person notable only as the mayor of a village not large enough to confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. Virtually none of the content here is actually about his mayoralty, but is all background biographical trivia of the kind that has no bearing on a politician's notability at all -- and the total lack of sourcing means WP:GNG has not been met. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete comes no where close to meeting inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 10 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) 00:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Davey[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biography of a person notable only as the mayor of a village not large enough to confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. Virtually none of the content here is actually about his mayoralty, but is all background biographical trivia of the kind that has no bearing on a politician's notability at all -- and the total lack of sourcing means WP:GNG has not been met. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Further, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database.--Rpclod (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 10 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) 00:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Webster Talcott Clarke[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biography of a person notable only as the mayor of a village which is not large enough to confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. It says virtually nothing substantive about him beyond the fact that he existed, and the lack of sourcing means WP:GNG has not been met. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 10 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) 00:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H.J. Jones[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of the mayor of a village which is not large enough to confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. Was prodded in 2009, but the creator deprodded with the rationale that they planned further research — but seven years later, the article is still based solely on the one source that was already present in 2009: a local history book published by the local historical society in which Jones is just namechecked rather than being the book's subject, and which is being cited only to support his prior career as a buyer for the local grain milling company rather than anything he did as mayor. So WP:GNG has not been met here either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Further, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database.--Rpclod (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farah Karimi (actress)[edit]

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

Contested prod-actress who is not yet notable Wgolf (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Not notable yet.--Musa^Talk ☻ 20:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too soon. Curro2 (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not yet better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, does not currently meet NACTOR. Has not received significant independent coverage from secondary sources. Film not yet released so can't be used in our assessment. Cowlibob (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' as as noted above way toosoon, Fails NACTOR as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:16, 12 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) 00:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.M. McCorkindale[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biography of a person notable only as the mayor of a village with a population of just 500, which is not large enough to confer notability on a mayor under WP:NPOL — but nothing else here suggests any other reason to consider him appropriate for inclusion, and the total lack of sourcing flunks WP:GNG right on its face. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Sillence[edit]

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

Locally notable at best. Does not meet WP:GNG. Seems like a nice guy, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site. ubiquity (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet notability criteria for creative persons.--Rpclod (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an obituary memorial site. Curro2 (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. This article was speedily deleted by @Diannaa:. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Platinumkit[edit]

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

Non notable piece of software. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 16:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:33, 5 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan McCaul[edit]

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

The subject has won a lifetime award for input into film in Ireland but the article says no more about him nor is anything further to be found online in newspapers or similar. The only information seems to be that he was Vice President and General Manager of Buena Vista International (Ireland) and a great supporter of Irish film. 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 16:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep In addition to the award, I found this and this, which push it over the threshold for me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those but it seemed like it was just a guy who did his job for a long time and because his industry was media related the papers covered that he got an award as he retired. It didn't seem like there was any other reference other than that he got the award for being a good guy...I wasn't at all sure that was enough 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 12:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Irish Times article linked above makes notability perfectly clear. We judge notability by coverage in such independent reliable sources rather than personal guesswork about why topics might have received such coverage. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have been found that provide significant coverage of this important figure in Irish film industry, an area that is under-represented.Atlantic306 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mercenaries characters[edit]

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

A long list of characters from a video game series currently consisting of two entries. Its only references is a GameRankings review that does not say anything substantial about any of these characters. Not notable. Soetermans. T / C 15:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenaries (series)#Characters currently just has a link to this list. Whether the solution is to improve this stand-alone list, or to trim it down and merge it to the series article, clearly this is a matter to be solved through discussion and editing, not through AFD. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why trim it down and incorporating it into the Mercenaries main article, when there's nothing there to keep? With not a single source listed, how are these characters notable in the first place? A quick Google search does not bring up any reliable sources that mention them. No development, no reception, no "greatest characters" list. A list of non-notable characters fails WP:VG/MOS. --Soetermans. T / C 16:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: a list of characters in a Marvel video game is also deemed inappropriate. Even when these characters actually do have articles, from a video game point of view, listing characters does not say anything substantial about their gameplay. The article on List of The Last of Us characters for instance has all the things why mentioning these characters in the first place is important. --Soetermans. T / C 16:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Characters don't have to merit their own standalone articles to be summarized in a list, and certainly not to be described in a section within a larger article. Though on top of the primary sources themselves (the video games and their accompanying manuals), any notable video game necessarily has reviews, third-party game guides, etc. Did you think the content in this list was just made up by a vandal? postdlf (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my late reply. What you're saying here is something entirely different of my understanding of WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Because it failed GNG, List of Mafia characters was redirected the other day. A list of characters part of an article was discussed here, Talk:Naruto: Ultimate Ninja#Character chart, and was considered trivial information. List articles like Characters of Final Fantasy VI or List of characters in the Metal Gear series have sources; they mentioned creation, development, bit on their gameplay, their reception and possibly cultural impact. List of Mercenaries characters does not have any of those things. --Soetermans. T / C 08:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no secondary sources establishing notability of the concept "characters in Mercenaries". Axem Titanium (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is unlikely solidly notable for an article. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A3, no substantial content. —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thetorchonline[edit]

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

seems like it should be a talk page entry Joel.Miles925 (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete There's already a CSD tag on the page, so not sure if this needed to come to AfD. It's going to be deleted shortly I would think. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - I clearly need to brush up on some of the guidelines here!, Anyway thanks Wikicology for your help here :) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Daniel[edit]

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

Non notable actress, I found this and this (The 2nd link is a screencap of a PDF - Unfortuanly clicking the actual PDF link automatically downloads it to your laptop so figured I'd screencap it),
Anyway apart from those 2 links I'm unable to find anything else on her, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely to better satisfy WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 01:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 14:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has had multiple roles on BBC and been part of the regular cast for 2 different series. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple major roles in BBC television, one at least of which (Hinterland/Y Gwyll) is popular and currently ongoing. There's been lots of press coverage of Hinterland in both Welsh & English. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep she meets NACTOR but she still fails GNG...., She doesn't even meet BASIC which states and I quote "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" - An interview and a mention aren't really "significant coverage".... –Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, WP:NACTOR is a subject-specific notability guideline, a notability guideline for actors just like WP:NFOOTY for footballers, WP:ACADEMIC for academics. It is a substitute to WP:GNG. Subject of an article need not pass WP:GNG if it has already passes any of the subject-specific notability guideline. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on here needs to meet GNG and technically should (or could) pass one of the other criterias too .... She meets NACTOR no problem but the problem is she fails to meet GNG, She's been acting since 2005 and the only thing to boot is a mention and an interview ... I wouldn't mind so much if there was all just mentions but there's literally nothing on her because she's not a notable actor. –Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no faintest idea of your interpretation of subject-specific notability guideline and WP:GNG. Regretfully, I don't think you're applying both guidelines correctly here. You said a subject needs to meet both -- subject specific notability guideline and WP:GNG. That is obviously not correct. WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR (or WP:ACADEMIC) are not this same. For example, the President or Chancellor (or Vice-chancellor) of a major academic institution or major academic society meet WP:ACADEMIC. Such a person needs not meet WP:GNG to have a standalone article here on Wikipedia. Pinging DGG, Swarm, Agricola44, David Eppstein and Mscuthbert for further interpretation of these guidelines. I will be glad to discuss this further in relevant discussion page. Cheer. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology - Ah I've just read Wikipedia:The GNG and notability for actors so basically you are correct, For some unknown reason I've always thought they needed to meet GNG and X .... Ah well in that case I apologize for the cock up, –Davey2010^Talk 16:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to worry. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like all is well – satisfying any one of the standard guidelines demonstrates notability. Cheers. Agricola44 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep subject of the article meet WP:NACTOR per her multiple major role in BBC television. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:55, 12 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. A clear consensus to delete following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shanthi Baliga[edit]

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

While her volunteer work is admirable, she is not notable.Some minor coverage of her but she just isn't notable Gbawden (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources and the awards she has won are too small to warrant notability. Opencooper (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 14:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and falls into the category of WP:NOT as the article is more of a resume. Pmedema (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to show notability. /wiae /tlk 21:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is some information there but perhaps nothing better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:49, 6 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. WP:NOQUORUM. Closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clap Your Hands Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT TOUR Rob Sinden (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:56, 22 January 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, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 14:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionably notable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FlippingBook[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Deleted few years ago, it was recreated or rewritten by a WP:SPA. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the AFD box above saving everyone trying to find it manually. –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is still questionable for the applicable notability and there's nothing better convincing. Notifying the only noticeably active AfDer Carrite. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still essentially commercial in intent. Carrite (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva charcha[edit]

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

Sources and Google do not support the notability of this phrase outside of one song. First AfD received no input. —swpb^T 14:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax, OR or mispelled, unreferenced = trash, kill it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to be more of a Hindi WP:DICDEF. I can't find any reliable sources. Pmedema (talk)
Delete as unlikely a better acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be more of a term coined by the author(or locals) which has no reliable source. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sources exist for "Shiv Charcha" (e.g. [3], [4]), but the term has not received significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R.K. Gold[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:AUTHOR: "small cult following", as noted in the article. Sole claim to fame is a vanity award from "Acclaimed Books"; all the references are from book blogs. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Converted prod to AFD, as there has been some blanking by an anonymous IP editor who previously contributed to the article. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently suggests better satisfying WP:CREATIVE, no solidly convincing sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete I tried, but cannot source an article under either name. He's young, it may merely be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CoOffice[edit]

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

Software. No claim for notability (WP:N), no sources, no substantial edits since creation as a stub in 2008. Sandstein 13:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails general notability. Ireneshih (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:17, 10 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) 00:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Z7 Entertainment[edit]

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

Not notable. No sources can be found for this company AdrianGamer (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's barely an article, delete for now as there are no better convincing signs of a better article. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Daugherty[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. Has worked with notable artists, but notability is not inherited. Google News finds a passing mention as "Tupac's personal engineer", but nothing of substance. Huon (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional account opening scores of these non-notable promotional pieces (he says he has "150" articles he plans to create). Enough is enough. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 13:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As a different IP, I've started a thread at the COI noticeboard, and asked that the promotional account be blocked. Also note a variety of sock/meat puppets and WP:SPAs have sprung up. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B095:6CD9:12FD:9C11 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now I see that an SPI has been opened [5]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B095:6CD9:12FD:9C11 (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{Thread Creator} These are not promotional accounts, how about you help add and contribute instead of deteriorate and belittle the life work of legendary producers and artists!?! As I mentioned I run Rap.com and that is credible enough. I have created both a non bias rapper account and a non bias producer account and my own personal account to establish the framework for which to conduct the rest of the interviews with the artists that are not currently on Wikipedia that meet the standards of notable musician. I am appalled at the apparent lack of support for the creation of more hip hop industry profiles. I ask that you edit the pages towards completion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RapAuthority (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of this suggests better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising or move to Draft space with an AfC tag, and self-declared effort to use Wikipedia to promote his interviews with musicians. The editor creating these articles seems to have a good heart but doesn't understand Wikipedia and as result is abusing it. We need to delete these and have him put them through AFC both for COI reasons and so he can learn what a Wikipedia article is and is not... Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC) (modifying - moving these ourselves to AfC would show him how he should be working. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Comment It's preferable to assume good faith, Jytdog, but a lot of virtual ink has been spent attempting to explain the way we work, and all that's offered in response is an insistence on getting their way. Of course Rap.com is not a reliable source, and its operator is attempting to use Wikipedia for promotional ends. I requested a block last night, and though it's not yet happened, suspect the workings of the SPI process will yield some resolution soon enough. In other words, the desire to use this site for their own ends trumps any interest in understanding how we work. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B095:6CD9:12FD:9C11 (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside whether he (you? I don't know if you are the rap person or someone else) has a COI or not. Looking just at his behavior -- in his great haste he is ignoring what a bunch of people have told him and is pressing on ahead anyway. At minimum he is showing that he doesn't care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for content nor for editor behavior - that is what we call disruptive behavior and is going to get him banned. I don't know if it arises from COI or plain old WP:ADVOCACY but either way something outside of WP is more important to him than Wikipedia itself, and that is a big problem. And yes this article like the others is the obvious product of that stance. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, exactly. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B095:6CD9:12FD:9C11 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say the person who made Tupac's beats, a song for Paul McCartney, Michael Jackson, is not notable? He is on the production credits of Tupac's album as one of the main engineers. "Never look down on someone unless you're helping them up" this is a quote to live by, do some research, I am an authority in the realm of Rap Music, and I will write all of the information on Rap.com and use that as a third party reference if need be, see I interview the artists and producers, and I write the facts and document it with factual samples, pictures, etc, and it's very important you give me the spots where I need to add references highlight that, don't argue if they have notability, anyone I put on Wikipedia has Notability because I run Rap.com and these people knock off many of the things listed on Wikipedia's notability requirements — Preceding unsigned comment added by RapAuthority (talk • contribs) 15:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you added the comment above you also removed other people's comments. They have been added back while keeping your comment, but if remove others' comments again, your edits will probably simply be reverted. --bonadea contributions talk 15:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every single article on Wikipedia has to be about a notable subject, and none of us has carte blanche to create any article we like and automatically have it pronounced as notable. There are some sources - printed encyclopedias, for instance - that pretty much guarantee that the subject is notable, but it doesn't appear that rap.com is such a source. That's not a discussion for this page, though; take it to the reliable sources noticeboard if you like, but remember that this discussion is about this specific article, not about any other potential articles you might want to create. --bonadea contributions talk 15:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet music notability standard. Disclosure that I was the nominator on the Eric the Prince AfD. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 10:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A post to the article's talk page requesting a move to Tommy D. Daugherty led me to discover that this has been deleted in an AfD already: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy D. Daugherty. That was a while ago and the articles probably look very different, so this AfD should probably run its course, but it is illuminating reading. --bonadea contributions talk 06:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and delete. Persistent lack of notability per WP:NMUSIC. --bonadea contributions talk 06:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Archetype[edit]

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

Not notable. No reliable sources/reviews can be found. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 12:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnotable video game with no reliable coverage from Video Game sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlikely better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impropriety (company)[edit]

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

Looks to be a local performance group. Most of the sources do not seem to be RS, or are connected with the subject. The fact they keep going out of business does not inspire confidence in their notability. Legacypac (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks general notability and reliable references. Ireneshih (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as none of this suggests a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 9 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.

Charles Sipkins[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Fontes[edit]

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

Article created by user Antion Fontes, so definitely a COI. Non notable sailor - hasn't won any major races. Makes unsubstantiated claims to have represented his country Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sailor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself marked this as reviewed and was also planning to nominate it for AfD, no convincingly better signs. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo End[edit]

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

I am struggling to substantiate the claims made in this article. Not mentioned in the 2nd citation and the Philly link is dead. Can find no other evidence that he was grammy nominated. What makes me suspicious is that this article was created by a new user whose sole edits were to this article. So either a hoax or a non notable musician who fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete didnt find any reference to back the claims. official website and youtube channel of Lorenzo End looks suspicious. Most probably a hoax.Nicky mathew (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H cross[edit]

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

Appears to be a minor intersection (and town) in India of two two-lane roads. It is ~50km northeast of Bengaluru in "farming" country. Prod was removed saying it is an important intersection. (Google map) Bgwhite (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely notable and needed, no signs of any better. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 19:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Page creator seems to think it is notable but hasn't added any refs. Their username also breaks policy. NordicDragon Talkpage 08:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rheinmetall RH-70[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable English sources for this. The only link given in the article is dead. Perhaps a German speaker could help, but otherwise fails WP:GNG. Also, was created by a Ctway sock; he was known to make up information. ansh 666 06:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Govind Chandra Munda[edit]

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

I'm not sure about the subject's notability. The subject is a former member of Indian parliament, however, they received no independent reliable coverage. Although it may pass WP:POL, but it fails our primary notability threshold. In the article, it is claimed that the candid has served as a member of parliament but I couldn't found any reliable source supporting that claim. Jim Carter 06:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Members of national parliaments are always notable per WP:NPOL #1. Once that fact is confirmable, even if only on the government's own listing of its past members, then we do not apply any further conditions to separate legislators into notable or non-notable piles on any criterion beyond the holding of a seat — the article is kept, and any referencing problems are flagged as maintenance issues rather than deletion candidates. In this instance, I can see three potential reasons why the nominator's inability to find improved sources does not mean that improved sources don't exist. Firstly, and most importantly, he was a legislator in India — which means a lot of potential sources are going to be written in Odia, Bengali, Hindi or Urdu rather than English. Secondly, he served in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s — which means a lot of potential sources may exist in news archiving databases or on microfilms rather than being quickly locatable on Google. And thirdly, this election results table gives several different forms of his name: he's "Govind Chandra Munda" when he wins in 1989, "Govinda Chandra Munda" when he wins in 1991 and when he loses in 1984, and just "Govinda Munda" when he wins in 1977 and when he loses in 1980. So yeah, there are some problems here, but they're maintenance issues. Keep and flag for refimprove. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is confirmed to have been a former member of the parliament.^[1] Passes WP:NPOL #1 —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "List of winner and runner MPs in 1989 General Elections". elections.in. Retrieved 6 February 2016.

Keep also as I reviewed this from NPP and assumed it may be notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Thanks for confirming the claim, Bearcat and UY Scuti. Jim Carter 04:11, 7 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 Bofors Carl Gustaf. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NIVA XM1970[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable English-language sources for this. Perhaps a Swedish-speaker would be able to assist; otherwise, fails WP:GNG. Also, was created by a Ctway sock; he was known to make up information. ansh 666 06:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems reasonable, provided that the sources used are verifiable and that it follows WP:UNDUE. ansh 666 06:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (One Swedish speaking editor as requested) per RAF910 above. (move to merge) Not a hoax, but no notability whatsoever. It was an experiment that never took off. The only know copy of the NIVA, short for Nytt infanterivapen ("new infantery weapon"), is in storage with the sv:Vapentekniska samlingarna ("Weapons Collection") in Eskilstuna City Museum and there are no reliable Swedish (online) sources other than the link to the manufacturer's website already in the article. w.carter-Talk 12:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bofors Carl Gustaf instead, perhaps? Since it is after all a little known but interesting piece of weapons development history, as well as potentially a window into some of the arguments and political maneuvering regarding Swedish defence doctrine during the early 1970s; for example the XM1970 seems likely to have been intended in part as a low cost alternative to the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle during a period when the government (1st Palme government) was gutting the defence budget among other things to fund social welfare programs & various other ruinously expensive white elephants. The NIVA program could also be considered to be a counterpart in at least some respects to the then current American Future Rifle Program. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source; a brief mention and image of the (second?) prototype on slide 24 of this presentation from 2004. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bofors Carl Gustaf as this may be salvageable and that article will also need work. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should have mentioned this yesterday, but the NIVA XM1970 can also be considered to be notable in its own right as Sweden's first attempt to introduce an rifle chambered for Intermediate cartridge (NATO 5.56x45mm in this case) ammunition into service. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're talking about Wikipedia "notability" here, not normal notability. If there are enough reliable sources which discuss this weapon as such, then it could meet notability. But, again, I personally didn't find any (as us 'murrcans don't seem too interested in Sweden for whatever reason). ansh 666 01:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bofors Carl Gustaf as per Ceannlann gorm's excellent suggestion. I just didn't think that far, my bad. It's good we have a gun expert in our midst to keep us on track. w.carter-Talk 17:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Askoriya AMR[edit]

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

Can't find any English language sources, and I'm not convinced of the Russian one's reliability. Perhaps a Russian or Ukrainian speaker could assist with sources, but otherwise it fails WP:GNG. Also, was created by a Ctway sock; he was known to make up information. ansh 666 06:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bakalov[edit]

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

I can't find any sources other than the one given, which is from a Bulgarian site which I don't believe is reliable. Maybe someone who can read Bulgarian can find something - from that source I believe that the string "Щурмова карабина Бакалов" means something close to "assault rifle Bakalov". Otherwise, fails WP:GNG. ansh 666 06:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "assault carbine" itself is a completely dysfunctional piece and the information from the source is compiled by its creator. No significance. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DWSE[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Radio station without significant coverage. References added are not enough to have its own article; one of which is a circular reference. Renomimating the article due to lack of consensus in the previous discussion. Sixth o f March 05:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I invite the original nominator JDDJS as well as interested editors Bearcat and Davey2010 to this discussion? Sixth o f March 06:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the original discussion, while we do accept licensing as a valid claim of notability for a radio station if the article is sourced properly, it is not a claim of notability that entitles a radio station to an exemption from having to be reliably sourced. No claim of notability on Wikipedia, in fact, can ever be passed just by asserting that it's been passed — it's not the mere statement of claim that makes the difference between a keep or a delete, but the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the claim.
But virtually all of the sources here are unreliable for one reason or another — for instance, a radio station's profile page on TuneIn Radio or RadioStationWorld does not confer notability in and of itself, nor does some random non-notable person's collection of travel photos on their own self-published website on Tripod.com, nor its simple inclusion in a business directory. And the one source that's marginally better than any of the others, #3, still fails to contain any publication details by which we can verify the accuracy of its information (its publisher could have just collated their information from us, for all we know.) These are not the kind of sources it takes to pass Wikipedia's sourcing rules.
Delete, unless somebody can start ponying up some reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rosson (contortionist)[edit]

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

Simply no real evidence of notability whatsoever, despite claims of being "world famous", either as Richard Rosson or Rubber Ritchie. He seems to be a children's entertainer and the context of how he's "featured" in national news and TV is unclear. The editing suggests the article is an auto-biography. Time for it to go (I'd have PROD'd it, but it's been around for many years so maybe someone knows something I've missed). Sionk (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No evidence or sources for any of the claims. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Srinivasan[edit]

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

Non notable. He's not CEO of the company; he's CEO of a division of the company. No adequate sources DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing suggesting better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claim to notability is being the CEO of an asset management company, but that company is unremarkable on the global scale (it would be in the top 250 in the world... around position 250). The asset management company itself probably wouldn't be notable enough for an article separate from the parent organization, and it certainly doesn't confer notability-by-association on its CEO. Thparkth (talk) 02:18, 6 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music Artists that use Logic Pro[edit]

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

I am not sure what purpose there is to knowing the list of people who use a particular product. 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 04:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely needed, merge anything I'd needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge much more relevant and useful if included in Logic Pro I think. Shritwod (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lux Jr.[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet the general notability requirement at WP:GNG or the more specific criteria set forth at WP:POLITICIAN. Third party coverage is not significant, being limited in both amount and depth. JohnInDC (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:POLOUTCOMES. No reason not to keep. There isn't any specific reason why this article would automatically be non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.198.125 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests it is actually better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the anonymous voter above thinks they're seeing here, but it's not what I'm seeing. WP:POLOUTCOMES specifies that a person who holds office at the municipal level in a town this size gets into Wikipedia only if the media coverage of them nationalizes into something far beyond the scope of the WP:ROUTINE coverage that all local town and city councillors can always expect to get from their local media. But the "coverage" here consists of three primary sources and two pieces of routine local coverage which just namecheck his existence while not actually being about him. So WP:SIGCOV has not been met here either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's essentially a town council member (not even the chair or first selectman) in a rural town of only 5,500 people. Without more, I don't think that position confers notability. Kestenbaum (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with all of the preceding arguments to Delete, and also want to point out the article was apparently authored by the subject himself, in violation of WP:AUTOBIOG. Contributor321 (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also agree with the deleting. Does not seem notable and it's written by himself.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric the Prince[edit]

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

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

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

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. An earlier revision of this article was nominated per CSD A7, however the creator has removed the tag and expanded the article greatly from the version nominated for speedy, thus why I am sending this to AfD over replacing the speedy tag. sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 02:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed WP:SOCK/blocked votes

As the creator I am asking that any discrpencies be put here, and the matter be resolved - anything that needs to be changed please let me know, I am creating Wikipedia's for about 150 independent artists around the country and this is the first one, my personal one, so please let me know EXACTLY what I need to do in order to make sure that absolutely none of the pages I post even get considered for "speedy deletion." Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RapAuthority (talk • contribs) 02:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:COI piece, promotional intent. Article's author appears to be using two accounts now. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Make that three. 75.80.192.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 06:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG completely with nothing found in a Google search. Edited out promotional content in the article anyway. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.. Notable and all sourced have been checked. --Hatchmight (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes all major criteria but needs some rework and additional material. Tag for now. Choicerpex (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2016 (′UTC)

Collapsed WP:SOCK/blocked votes

*Keep.. Notable and it all checks out, glad to have him on Wikipedia. --weshouldworktogetherbecause (talk)

weshouldworktogetherbecause (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 07:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

!vote stricken per outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erictheprince --bonadea contributions talk 19:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. looks good to me. --lifeguard5770 (talk)

lifeguard5770 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 07:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

!vote stricken per outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erictheprince --bonadea contributions talk 19:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article currently makes no claim to meet WP:NMUSIC and I cannot find any sources that would help towards that, or towards WP:GNG. Editor(s) arguing in favour of keeping the article are invited to follow the link to WP:NMUSIC and explain how the person meets it. --bonadea contributions talk 08:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly fails WP:GNG 96.237.20.21 (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this may fit speedy deletion criteria A7, or at least on the edge. 96.237.20.21 (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clause #7 "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

Edits are being made that verify, a new update with cited sources will be added that match the criteria. Aloha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.17.157 (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising, very possibly with conflict of interest. The current sources are entirely inadequate to demonstrate notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising or move to Draft space with an AfC tag, and self-declared effort to use Wikipedia to promote his interviews with musicians. The editor creating these articles seems to have a good heart but doesn't understand Wikipedia and as result is abusing it. We need to delete these and have him put them through AFC both for COI reasons and so he can learn what a Wikipedia article is and is not... Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC) (modifying - moving these ourselves to AfC would show him how he should be working. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The article is autobiography as RapAuthority wrote here Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a sockpuppet investigation underway here. --bonadea contributions talk 08:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed WP:SOCK/blocked votes

None of these statements in the article have anything to do with promotion, advertising or anything like that it is simply to show the references and citations needed for clauses, notability in Hawaii there is a the local scene of Hawaii Hip Hop as an artist, a huge amount of things that have been done in my life, I should have a Wikipedia page and people can edit it and add things, yes I am notable, and yes I am referencing things and I am creating Wikipedia's for notable people in the rap/hip hop industry who don't have one because 'no one is motivated to create one for them' there's a lot of bullshit in the music industry that people make up to do deals, managers, and not enough reliable third party sources to verify their sources right away with one quick search and in turn many people get screwed over therefore this is not only a safety issue for people but it is a passion to MindMap for me, I use mind mapping software all the time and the Wikipedia is the best mind mapping software out there, as I said, page meets notability, that's not an issue, I put the links and statements to show that it does and how it meet the clause, now that the links are there that prove the clause is met then they say it's advertisement, however and have more third party resources and there are others editing this now and if you people who have a heart to do articles for creation on it because it will take some time to build I was just so upset about it because people were judging too soon, those not passionate about hip hop won't find these people notable even if they do meet the clauses, secondly I have plenty of references to add and if there is a way it can be placed into Articles for Creation as more citations are added and then 'legally' moved back into Wikipedia main database after a few other of these honest and supportive moderators in this discussion can help with doing some research and helping add verifiable sources thus helping me see exactly how I need to create these articles for new producers and artists to be added to Wikipedia the right way and allowing me to teach managers how to do it effectively for their artists when their artist meets the criteria because the Wikipedia portal is very important for credibility. So I appreciate the help and want to also be a reference and a third party source that Wikipedia users can reference from as Rap.com is an authority on Rap music and as we are conducting interviews with peoople to find out if they meet the notability clauses in Wikipedia we are finding lots of talented people who know one knew about that now have a place of honor and all of their stories are fact checked and verified. And no accounts are sock puppets or meat puppets and no other accounts are associated to me they are family members. So I am just here to begin a process of clearing up a lot in the music industry because I believe in you guys, and in use Wikipedia's genius and beautiful way of defining truth and it's incredible community of moderators 15:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)RapAuthority There are several interviews that are being cited and performance announcements each thing being added over the next few days so please allow some time for additional material that way this can be finished and I can move on to interviewing more artists, producers and music people to see if they meet notability requirements and will know exactly what needs to be on the article and I'll be able to build it for a while in the text pad so when I upload it to Wikipedia and it will be set and good to go. And as I am in conversations with many major artists I will be able to add unique information to Wikipedia the normal person wouldn't be able to find out and I'll know what needs to be found and referenced before any new information is added. This is very important because more business being conducted on truth in the music industry is what we need and Wikipedia's system is the best there is which is why doing this work anywhere else is nothing like being a contributor to this magnificent website and community 15:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)RapAuthority — Preceding unsigned comment added by RapAuthority (talk • contribs)

Notability is not inherited. Even if you have worked with notable people, it does not automatically make you notable, and the article still doesn't make any actual claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. As you surely realise, the person who claims to be the subject of an article can never be the final arbiter of their own notability for Wikipedia's purposes - that would completely defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not the place to discuss any other articles you might want to create, but before you start doing that, please have a look at Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the policy on original research which will tell you why you cannot use your own research as sources in a Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 17:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and now RapAuthority has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts, including lifeguard5770 and weshouldworktogetherbecause. --bonadea contributions talk 19:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have no idea what Hatchmight meant by saying the sources "have been checked", but the vast majority are not reliable, including YouTube, iTunes and Instagram. Others do not mention Eric the Prince. The only reliable third-party source in the article is misrepresented and says nothing about Eric Schaefere except that he "delivers pizzas for a living". That's not enough for an encyclopedia article about him. Huon (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed WP:SOCK/blocked votes

Keep give it a few days as all sources are being found and Wikipedia's rules are being checked, I have several people looking into the matter, if there's a way we can move this to Articles for Creation, there is a lot of print advertising that has not been yet uploaded to the internet with promotional flyers and as you can also see, there is an article here: https://www.zoho.com/crm/blog/running-multiple-businesses-crm-platform.html that says plenty more about the time after delivering pizza. The bottom line is this, I didn't read where you couldn't write an article about yourself, and I did it for the purposes of know what references are acceptable, I figured I know more about me than anyone I can interview so if I can pass the check then I can write articles about others and find out exactly what causes Notability. I simply don't want this page to be deleted indefinitely, if the moderator can be so kind as to move this to a temporary area where the article can be editted by third parties who can find the information online and write about it given the reference above and other references that are now being uploaded to the internet, then I would appreciate it, and I will abide by all Wikipedia rules and now I know exactly what you guys are looking for and what Wikipedia demands so I can ask the producers and artists the right questions and find out if they qualify for a Wikipedia page or not. I hope that make sense, I came to Wikipedia to write articles on artists and producers and to learn how to do that I wrote an article on myself, now that it's written and up for debate I want to make sure that it isn't deleted for life, but that it is moved to a special section where third parties can edit it to the point where it is acceptable and the notability proof can be accepted by everyone and it is moved to the proper category as I am learning how this all works. Much love and Aloha from Hawaii, thanks guys. 75.80.192.81 (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)RapAuthority[reply]

Please could you stop filibustering - you are writing a lot of words but have provided no reliable sources at all, which is all that matters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One self-released album fails WP:MUSIC. John Nagle (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a SNOW DELETE here, barring the various socks. Could somebody please close? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 12 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

66 Months[edit]

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

Uncertain notability. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF. Under the film's long title, numerous sources were found discussing the film directly and in detail: Oxford Times, The Argus, Oxford Mail (1), Oxford Mail (2) and Bicester Advertiser allowing the nominated poor stub to be easily expanded and improved. There are more, but we already have enough to show WP:NPOSSIBLE and WP:BURDEN met. YSchmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The 62 characters (28 words) unsourced stub article which was brought to AFD is now a 2437 characters (392 words) well-sourced start class which serves the project with its 10x expansion. I dream of horses, does this AFD need to remain open? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It appears that improvements have been mad and article is on the right track. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:34, 6 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 List of works by Banksy. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glory (Banksy)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability beyond "piece of art made by famous artist sold for a certain amount of money". FallingGravity (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with FallingGravity. Empamazing (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are other sources to incorporate into the article (Artnet, Christie's), but even if the work doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability threshold, there is no need to delete the article. Just redirect to Banksy. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could make the redirect List of works by Banksy into an article (cf. Works by Banksy that have been damaged or destroyed) and merge it there. FallingGravity (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed, but I'm also not sure I have the capacity to take the project on. Creating List of works by Banksy would allow some content to be forked from the parent article, which could be more focused on him and his career instead of individual works. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of works by Banksy. Sounds like a good idea to me. There's an entire category full of these. I might tag them all for merging if this passes. I've had trouble finding sources, but it could be related to the name. It's not easy to do a search on "glory" and get meaningful results, no matter how many terms you include or exclude. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about this particular article, but indiscriminately nominating all of the works of one of the most famous contemporary English artists for merging would be disruptive, so please don't do that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the newly-created List of works by Banksy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Experiments with Time Travel[edit]

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

A wholly non-notable videogame that does not seem to be able to satisfy the GNG at any time in the near future. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No hits at all in typical video game sourcing, using WP:VG/RS custom reliable source search. Based on the "It uses Harry Potter story elements" I suspect it'd never be published. "Official" website is a blogspot, which describes it simply as "upcoming" with no real details. I'd almost say try to CSD it under A11 or G11. -- ferret (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are complete non-commercial, famous novels based on Harry Potter e.g. HPMOR. So there is no question of non-publication as the blog does not indicate that the game is commercial. The article clearly states why the game is notable. There are at-least thousands of people out there who would like to be informed of such a game. Whenever a person looks for games in the Time-travel video games category on Wikipedia, they should not be left out from knowing about this game. Gameplayer10 (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it exists, doesn't mean there should be a Wikipedia article about it. If "thousands of people" would want such a game, probably a reliable source will report on it, then we'll do too. --Soetermans. T / C 15:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable video game. It might be too soon for an article on this topic. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unreleased product -- WP:TOOSOON to pass WP:GNG, no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:11, 5 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. No consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Western Complex shooting[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be any notability demonstrated from this event, which in retrospect is just a smaller, toned-down version of the 2015 Waco shootout. In fact, this article is modeled after the Waco shootout article, which tells me this was created because this sounded like said shootout. Parsley Man (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parsley, did you notice that these are biker gangs made up of police and military, active and ex? I ask because it does seem to be generating deeper and broader coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that has to do with establishing even a trace of notability... Parsley Man (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might have brought it to AFD because you had missed this aspect. I missed it, at first. It does contribute insofar as it contributes to the broad, deep, ongoing coverage that this event attracted. A brawl between two "ordinary" biker gangs might well have gotten merely routine coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not miss it. But the amount of coverage demonstrated so far has not been helpful in establishing notability. Parsley Man (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; I would keep this for now, even though information may be missing. Note to nominator, a number of articles are similar in layout due to the similarity of events taking place (which some layouts are encouraged by guidelines set out by Wikiprojects such as WP:CITIES). But this won't stop it being WP:NOTNEWS. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Lasting effects. I do not see anything coming of this. If it results in some sort of crack-down on gangs, I could see it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - for now. good sourcing and event got plenty of attention. and "lasting effects" Richard-of-Earth? it happened a week ago, do you got a magic ball?.BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's the question, isn't it? Whose "magic ball" do we trust here -- the one that says the event will have lasting effects or the one that says it won't? My own magic ball says that this debate will get re-listed. If something noteworthy turns up by then, I'll be happy to reconsider my recommendation. But for now, WP:NOTNEWS. (By the way, Adog104, rating the article as C-class seems overly generous. But maybe that will be moot in a few days.) NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I admit that I had missed this story entirely until it showed up at AFD. So I searcher. here: [6] here: [7] and here:[8] are articles that, in addition to those already on page, show notability of this crime, which is far form being the kind of "routine" coverage described in WP:NOTNEWS, which are detailed under WP:EVENT section WP:ROUTINE, but often misinterpreted. I think we need to take WP:RAPID into account, and not rush to delete on the basis of personal opinions re: whether an event currently receiving coverage that is WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE will also prove to receive WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Note, however, that these are indicators; it is not necessary that an event have all three. No recent even can prove that it will have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, so we put away our crystal balls and keep articles that, like this one, are currently generating wide and substantive coverage that, in this case, goes beyond routine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait (keep for now) - too early to make a determination per WP:NEVENT; maybe come back to it in a month or two. ansh 666 09:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.20.220 (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 06:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Car song[edit]

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

Unsourced and not a common term. I could be convinced it's a list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - no sources, no indication that it's anything other than the article creator's own invented term. Even as a list, the term would be ridiculously broad - there's probably hundreds of thousands of songs that mention cars. Rockypedia (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I nearly went with delete but I believe a workable article can be spun out of this. Regarding the possible size of a list, sure there are a lot of songs, but if we use our usual guidelines and restrict entries to those deemed to be good car songs by reliable sources (example), it probably doesn't come out as much. I'm also thinking things like this could be covered, as I see "car song" and "driving song" as synonyms to some extent. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's clearly a notable topic here. Here's another source: Early Songs: Romance and the Road. Andrew D. (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Does not appear to use the term. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is totally irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia about things, not a dictionary about words, so there is no distinction to be made between a source that contains the phrase "car song" and one that contains the phrase "songs about cars". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly related to hot rod rock, but there are plenty of reliable sources dealing with the car song. I found the following in a quick search through Google Books: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet hot rod rock does not have its own article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There probably is enough for one. As another possibility, that content could be merged into this one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just go ahead and say merge the content of the "hot rod rock" section in surf music into this article, per the following sources (as well as others): [14], [15], [16].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is full of unreferenced opinion and it is almost impossible to make it anything else. For starters songs metnioning cars have been written and been successful since the introduction of cars. From WP, I give you one example from 1905, In My Merry Oldsmobile, together with a quote from the article, "The song's chorus is one of the most enduring automobile-oriented songs. The verses, which are slightly suggestive (by 1905 standards) and contain quaint terms for lovemaking, are seldom heard today" So the question is, is it a song about "lovemaking" or a car? Taking another song, which is mentioned in the article, Mustang Sally, where the lyrics read, "You been runnin' all over town now/Oh I guess I have to put your flat feet/On the ground" Now that reads like a song about promiscuity, not motor cars. Cars used as euphemisms in songs. Keep on trucking. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to better define the term "car song." Per my arguments above, it seems that the "car song" genre is synonymous with "hot rod rock," and can be defined by reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ritchie333 & 3family6. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless this just becomes a list of songs about cars, I don't see the use of this article. It isn't an actual genre (like hot-rod music), it fails to mention any history or any example of a "car song" before the 1950s. Just because a band wrote a song about a car does not mean it was part of some sort of "car song" craze. My point is this article is too broad with no actual evidence to back up its worth. A hot-rod music page would be nice though.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment - it's also worth mentioning cars in songs are actually associated with surf rock and the California sound, both of which are clearly mentioned in detail.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick and Richhoncho, if the article were refined to deal mainly with just that, the hot rod rock scene associated with surf rock and the California sound as well as any additional songs that reliable sources consider part of the "car song" or "hot rod" genre, would you agree to keep the article?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3family6 my main concern is this article has nothing to do with the hot-rod genre and "car song" isn't even a musical genre, so it would be best to delete it. Nothing is useful from the article and it has a total lack of direction. Hot-rod music is a subgenre that is known to exist primarily in the 1950s and early-1960s. A "car song" is not automatically relevant to such an article. The only way to save this article, in my opinion, is making it a list.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, If you intend to make it hot-rod relevant this article might as well be moved to a draft space because the name is wrong. The underlying problem of articles and categories by lyrical content is that you cannot find independent information to confirm that it is about a hot rod etc. As I pointed out the singer may have bought Sally a Mustang, but it NOT about a car. I would be pleased if there is an editor that can prove me wrong. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article title might be correct - I'm not sure which is more common in reliable sources "hot rod rock" or "car song" - both seem to be used highly frequently. The article as is probably should be moved to draft space, as it needs to be entirely reworked. There is a genre called "car song", the same way that there are murder ballads, but, looking at several reliable sources, this "car song" genre seems to indistinguishable from "hot rod rock". However, I agree that just any song that mentions cars, or is even about cars, does not qualify - the article should be restricted to songs explicitly considered "car songs" in reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The murder ballad article has prose sections: description of the genre, history and cultural references sections. All of these sections are referenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is notable for inclusion as part of this encyclopedia, by the coverage found in the sources from 3family6.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:34, 26 January 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 // 07:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is certainly encyclopedia material and be improved if needed. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Came here to see if this could use an NAC, but not yet, I suppose; so keep, per Ritchie333. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:40, 5 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 // 01:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone above me - It's certainly a notable topic and I'd imagine there's tons of news sources & books if one digs deep enough, It does need improvement but as I said it's notable topic. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davey2010: It's not your job to imagine that there are sources, it's your job to find the sources. It's the sources that determine if a topic is notable, not your imagination. Now that we have your option, please offer some fact. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Walter Görlitz - I disagree .... I firmly believe it is my job to imagine sources are everywhere and I also believe my imagination does determine notability!.... (Yeah I was meant to have revisited this later and ended up forgetting..., Let me see what I can find!). –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. It's your job to prove the notability of the subject. Your belief and imagination are immaterial in a deletion debate. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It goes into details. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expanded the article and greatly re-worked it. While it certainly could be developed more, and the last section is just a list, it is in a much better shape than it was before. It now deals with the "car song" as a style, with citations to reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:51, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Chernik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted and somehow restored but still has the same problems. Most of the sources were either WP:SPS, non- RS or are web only sources that no longer exist and can't be verified. Once the unsourced info is removed, there is little left to show notability. The most convincing item is not even used as a ref. Another ref isn't so much about her as about the technique she used. Subject has a long history of COI edits, and now an IP from her current hometown edits. Not convinced she passes WP:ARTIST. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although she is a talented graphic artist, she fails our notability guideline for artists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind one part of WP:NARTIST is being notable among one's peers. I'm positive that the hot artists within in the art world will be recognized by Wikipedia last!!! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleaned up the article and added references. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A commercial illustrator, working in a style that is inspired by art nouveau. No notable works. Fails WP:Artist Mduvekot (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft and userfy I'd needed as this is still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NARTIST, but then I'm guessing one needs to know something about the art world. Also, the editor who created this is not a SPA, just a fan of the art, and liked a lot of illustrators, but got banned due to their name. It's funny, to me, that I can name myself Superman because I'm a fan, yet other names are forbidden. Naturally, Wikipedia never gives out this info until after the editor account has been created. Although, in this case, this particular editor got exactly zero info from Wikipedia. Not even a "Welcome," just banned. That's what I call sheer lunacy!!! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not correct. The author is a SPA. "A single-purpose account (SPA) is an user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles." The lion's share of their edits were related to this article. Perhaps you are thinking of sock-puppet? A student of the subject may have a COI. The reasons for deletion don't include the author getting banned for their username. (BTW, since Superman isn't real, there's not a BLP issue with using the name. There IS one with using the name of the subject of the article you're editing.). The artist herself has also edited here as EchoX, contesting the previous deletion of this article at DRV and, as I mentioned, an IP from her hometown just happens to be editing the article. Could be coincidence or could be sock/meat puppetry. However, none of those things make the subject notable. Your reasoning for keeping is that none of us voting to delete know anything about the art world, which isn't really a policy based reason to keep. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I do not consider this to SPA at all! Creator wanted to write about Michael Willian Kaluta, Gerald Brom, Tony DiTerlizzi along with the fact that there are three subjects they edited. The Superman comment referred to obvious problems that editor would have with COI issues, not BLP. (Wonder if that editor ever knew why they were blocked?) Now, I personally believe having a BLP on Wikipedia would be one hellish nightmare. You're responsible for keeping tract of it and making sure it's accurate, yet your powerless to do anything about it, but hope some poor anonymous editor.

My reasoning for Keep was due solely to notability. This is why, as I've stated many times before, most Wikipedia editors have little knowledge about the art world and where those artists go to read about their peers. Hint - It ain't Wikipedia!!! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The account made 53 edits. 52 of them were related to Chernik. That, my friend, is a textbook SPA. While you may have some personal definition, mine is passed on the guideline and is quite defensible. What the creator may have wanted to write isn't relevant. We can only base it on what they actually did. My COI/BLP comment explains the difference. I'm sorry you miss the point. Your keep vote is simply "passes NARTIST" without explaining how. Then you went on to tell the rest of us that we just aren't smart enough to know she is notable. Artists shouldn't come here looking for peers. There are sites for that. They should only come here to find notable people who belong in an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My keep vote is that this passes WP:NARTIST per recognition among their peers. Have no fear, artist don't come to Wikipedia! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 23:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, several edits later, you actually specify how you think she passes NARTIST. Why not simply do that the first time instead of wasting time acting condescending while actually not fulfilling your responsibility as a voter? Again, it makes no difference to me if artists come here or not. But since Chernik herself has openly edited on Wikipedia, your statement has been disproven. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 01:07, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God Gave Me U[edit]

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

This article is about a television series that hasn't even started principle production yet. It also doesn't even have a handful of confirmed cast members, it has no confirmed director and the article lacks sources, it only has one source so I don't think it warrants an article yet. SuperHotWiki (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Agree with SuperHotWiki there. I suggest pushing this back into a draft, and recreate it until more information is available. Zamaster4536 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈ ^(speak now) 01:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Wikipedia has no deadline; as and when this show gets coverage, we can create an article about it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:30, 5 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PkoloTheproducer[edit]

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

Singer with questionable notability as well as a autobio. It does mention he was nominated for a award though-not sure how notable the award is (I know this article was deleted earlier as Pkolo Theproducer. Wgolf (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried pretty hard to find any substantive coverage of this person, but all I seem to come across are his own social media accounts. Quite apart from GNG, BLP requires that we blank most of this; and there would be basically nothing left. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comprehensively fails both WP:GNG and the alternative criteria at WP:CREATIVE. As far as I can see, he claims to be a record producer, rather than a performer. The claim to have been nominated for a New York Music Award for "You Be Killin Em" strikes me as spurious. Pkolo is not listed as the producer. It appears that its artist Fabolous and the song did win this award (which is open only to New York-born or based performers) for the best hip-hop single and video [17]. But I can find no mention of Pkolo in relation to it, even searching under his real name. The only reference in PkoloTheproducer is "Recording Connection grad Pkolo interviews Swizz Beats, appears on Reality Show". It is a brief shout out on the "Student Services" blog of Recording Connection about his progress since leaving his apprenticeship/training there. Interestingly there is no mention whatsoever in that blog post about winning this award or any other one for that matter. Voceditenore (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per voceditenore and WP:SNOW close.4meter4 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing suggesting better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Weston[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 136 AHL games, no honors while at BU/AHL/ECHL. Search on him only finds small blurbs that he was coach at ACHA San Diego State and assistant coach at UMass Boston. Yosemiter (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Modest career that fell far under the radar, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 21:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈ ^(speak now) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the guideline for athletes that they must be players in a professional league? Or is there a "top-tier" qualifier that I am missing there? Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: See WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA for specifics, but there is a qualifier for only certain "top-tier professional leagues" and for notable achievements in lower levels that usually imply a player will meet the WP:GNG (which is more important anyways). A non-qualifying NHOCKEY player may meet GNG for other reasons but rarely will a player meet NHOCKEY and not GNG. Does that clarify it enough? Yosemiter (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Since second-tier pro-leagues are not sufficient for the guidelines, I would !vote to delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chrys Kefalas[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a candidate in a party's primary race for a future election. This does not satisfy WP:NPOL in and of itself, but no other substantive claim of notability has been shown — the only other claim that's even been attempted here is that if he wins the Senate seat he'll be the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress. But Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are based on what's already true today, not on what might become true in the future, and he's far from the first person who could ever claim that they had the potential to become the first openly gay Republican congressman if they won a future election they hadn't already won — even winning the primary wouldn't actually be a historic first for gay Republicans, as Carl DeMaio and Richard Tisei could tell you. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I'm not all that impressed by "first" of this sort, and Barney Frank sort of made that kind of claim passe, but, well, I guess I do care a little, have we really not had anyone openly gay in the Senate yet?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SOXROX (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈ ^(speak now) 01:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~leaning towards Keep~~ Looking at the coverage he's gotten. Which may be enough for notability. I'll be back.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now thinking redirect, see below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of long newspaper profile he was getting as he moved towards running: [18], much of the coverage is in-depth [19], [20], [21] not merely routine election coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "as yet non-winning candidate in a Senate primary" is the context in which the coverage is being given, then it's still WP:ROUTINE regardless of whether it's a fairly substantive article or just a blurb — local media have an obligation to give coverage to people who are running in local elections, so all candidates always get coverage of that type. And the last link you provided in that comment is not coverage of him, but an article written by him. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

true. Sorry. Of course, if it was something I wrote, it probably wouldn't be in the paper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL apply. He is being given this coverage because "if he wins, he will be..." etc. Well, if he wins, he will be notable, and we can write and article about him. I wouldn't be opposed to userfying this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is all way too soon. We generally discourage such coverage of non-elected political candidates because it will remain unbalanced, lack long-term coverage and be unduly presentist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have been going back and forth on this one, and I want to rethink. again. In general, I totally agree with Bearcat's well-stated position that merely generating routine coverage while running for office does not confer notability. However, coverage does confer notability, and this is true no matter what triggers the coverage. At a certain point, coverage even of certified airheads like Todd Palin tips the balance into WP:GNG territory. A new article today, [22] seems to me to put Kefelas over that line.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded article slightly, covering basics like childhood and education. Articles I mention above can also be added. Plus, let's remember that he's he not running for village council - like the usual politician pages that come to AFD. Candidates for the United States Senate do often get the kind of coverage that supports a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then draft and userfy as this is still questionable including for the applicable notability, not yet a better solid article. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Not only are there too many "if"s in his claim for notability, but the claim doesn't even appear to be true. The article lead claims that "If elected, he would be the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress.[3]", but the reference cited does not support that claim. And there seem to have been several openly gay Republican members of congress before him, including Steve Gunderson and Jim Kolbe. And no, he wouldn't be the first gay senator either (that would be Tammy Baldwin), although he would be the first gay Republican senator. As for his likelihood of winning the election, Maryland has not elected a Republican senator since 1980. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 12 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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silent HC[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:BAND, and no significant coverage in WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources, just some writeups in music blogs of unknown notability. Article written by their drummer; speedy deletion contested by new WP:SPA. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the chartings may imaginably be helpful to notability but this is still questionable with no better signs of better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈ ^(speak now) 01:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 5 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anew Revolution[edit]

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

This article does not cite any outside sources, except for a Kickstarter page. I had trouble establishing significance for this page. Garchy (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per these sources. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 00:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources above have been presented I believe WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 5 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) 22:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Garlington[edit]

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

Non-notable local author article created by subject. Awards are local in nature. Lacks non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CREATIVE..E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local author and media personallity with no clear claim to fame.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo García (boxer)[edit]

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

Delete: not particularly notable boxing coach; does not derive notability from his sons, Robert and Mikey, who are/were professional boxers. Not exactly Cus D'Amato. Quis separabit? 03:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he may not be as high profile as Cus D'Amato, but do you have to be the most famous trainer in the history of boxing to pass? He has trained multiple world champions including a lineal world champion. I am already at Keep but if more references can be found I would be inclined to move to Strong Keep.--Donniediamond (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe the reference linked in the article, the sole reference used in the article, relates to the person in question. Could it be his son? References need to be added to the article to pass WP:V or I could shift completely to Delete. I also propose that the article is moved to Eduardo García (trainer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donniediamond (talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I removed that reference and put an appropriate tag.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new reference to if from The Ring. There appears to be a lot of articles about him on the net, not sure how many have him as their primary focus though.--Donniediamond (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to get pretty extensive coverage in this article from the LA Times back in 1996.--Donniediamond (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that article is about the fighters not the trainer and that the article's only reference is a passing mention. I do agree that, if kept, the title should reflect he's more notable as a trainer than a boxer. Papaursa (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article in Sports Illustrated adds more flesh to the bones as does this in the LA Times and this article refers to him as 'one of the greatest boxing trainers of the last 30 years.'

Keep the above reliable sources are good enough for verification and proof of notability,in my opinionAtlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the coverage is not overwhelming, I think it is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Again I would advocate for a change of title to better reflect his notability is as a boxing trainer. Papaursa (talk) 05:04, 5 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.

[1] "List of winner and runner MPs in 1989 General Elections". elections.in. Retrieved 6 February 2016.

[1]