Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 February	9 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 Close malformed AfD. The actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabien Duchene (2nd nomination). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find any substantial coverage to demonstrate that the subject is notable per WP:BIO. The majority of the sources cited are not directly related to this person work (general newspaper article, computer security conference website). The fact that he had a PhD and published few papers like every Phd student does not make him notable. Some of its works or iteration of the same paper are listed multiple times. The majority of the article was written by phony account created just for this task (explained in the article's talk page). The article is not neutral and overstate most of this person work ("Duchene popularized computer hacking").

This article is pure publicity and self promotion, probably written by Fabien Duchene himself or one of his friend.

Beretta vexee (talk) 09:49, 8 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) 00:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Tipton[edit]

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

I'm a bit mystified as to how this survived the first Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kay_Tipton; a closer inspection indicates a lot of untagged single-purpose accounts. The references in the article only prove that she won some awards, as many teachers do. There's nothing whatsoever to demonstrate WP:BIO or WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete She is a high school teacher who has been recognized beyond the high school, but not to the level to make her notable. If she really had the impact some people claimed in the previous deletion discussion, than we could find news articles in both the Birmingham, Alabama press and in publications based outside of Birmingham on her. Until someone can show such coverage this looks like Vestavia Hills boosterism. It should also be remembered that back in 2005 when the first deletion debate happened Wikipedia did not have as well developed rules for inclusion.I am skeptical she is a teacher at Vestavia Hills High School anymore. This has no bearing on her notability, but it would show that her notability is not enough to keep the article up-to-date which is an argument against articles on marginally notable BLPs. I have a strong suspicion that many of the people who commented on the first debate were VHHS grads who had neither a sense of actual importance of either VHHS or anything else they spoke of, or a sense of how such things mattered in the long run.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this has signs of the applicable notability. Notifying the only still active 1st AfDer CambridgeBayWeather. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP was more so the Wild West in 2005 than it is now. Current standards render this an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete In the 11 years since the last AfD nothing seems to have changed to make her more notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Should have been deleted in the first go around. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike some editors above, I have not trouble at all understanding why this article survived AFD: the world needs heroic math teachers. We all want to have great math teachers to celebrate. There is some news coverage, and she won the Phebe and Zephaniah Swift Moore Award given to great high school teachers by Amherst College. I wish the press paid enough attention to truly great teaching to make pages like this on a high school teacher viable. Sadly, I can't source it. Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 15 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 Ponyo, CSD G5: Mass deletion of pages added by User:Itailevi046 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merkavim Mars[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; deprodded by original author without comment (except to mark as "minor edit"). PamD 22:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. If page is to keep, it will need to be expanded. Meatsgains (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 00:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 00:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines. Rollingcontributor (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC). Afd notice also removed by author without comment, only marking it as a minor edit. Rollingcontributor (talk) 14:51, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winter vacation[edit]

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

Seems like an extensive piece of original research and has been unsourced for the past 10 years. Furthermore: according to all the Google results, the term 'winter vacation' refers to the act of going some place else during the holidays, and holds no significance with regards to 'economical savings' or the like —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. For example, see Segmenting the Market for Winter Vacations. Andrew D. (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be properly referenced. (Yep having a bet both ways.) Actually should be uplinked to an article about holiday period and seasonal migrations by humans generally (seriously). Not just schools head towards the equator in significant numbers during winter breaks. (If it stays I might even have a go at such a collection of articles. Aoziwe (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this can be improved, unlikely needed for actual deletion. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 14 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, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn of Hope[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for the up-and-coming. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even find an evidence that this subject exists. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be a real game yet, much less a notable one. /wiae /tlk 00:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically imaginably speedy, no signs of a beter article. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No relevant hits on a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. Way too soon for an article, if this even exists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QBurst[edit]

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

No signs of meeting WP:NOTE Amortias (T)(C) 19:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notifying speedy tagger DGG and PROD taggers Chrisw80 and SwisterTwister --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I still confirm this, my searches found nothing better convincing for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence of notability. I do not regard the Deloitte placings as showing notability by our standards: they are not an award. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Also see no evidence of notability except for the one site that shows they are supposed specially according to clutch.co which says "... using proprietary research methodology to identify top services companies and map their capabilities. Companies are plotted on the matrix based on their proven ability to deliver and focus on a service type." Even if they were notable, article would likely require complete rewrite to not be WP:PROMO. Chrisw80 (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vasand Thari[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written like a résumé and supported almost entirely by primary and unreliable sources rather than actual media coverage, of a person who has no strong claim to getting over any of Wikipedia's SNGs for any of the various fields of endeavour that he's claimed to have been involved in. Nothing about his singing supports or even really claims an WP:NMUSIC pass, nothing about his political activity satisfies WP:NPOL, and on and so forth. Article has already been speedied twice within the past ten days for lacking any credible evidence of notability, but was then recreated again a third time -- so I declined the third speedy nomination and am taking it to AFD instead so we can apply the hammer of consensus and a liberal dose of WP:SALT. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source provided establishes that he is not the leader of QAT as the article indicates. His politics appears to be local/regional, and there are no news hits under either English or Sindhi forms of his name. GNG/ANYBIO isn't met, but it doesn't look like any set of notability criteria have been met to date (even acknowledging that points similar to WP:INDAFD are likely to apply). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 10:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because despite my good faith assumption that subject is indeed a "politician, activist, advocate, singer, Musician, poet, writer, journalist, research specialist, Lecturer and facilitator on various topic (especially on History, law, philosophy, social science, evaluation, human rights and civil rights, political education) and Human rights activist." I cannot find secondary sourcing ot support these claims. As so often, we stand in debt to User:Bearcat for diligent patrolling of vanity pages and the premature claims of enthusiastic candidates.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 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) 00:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NetHelpDesk[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Possible notability for the award it received but the subject is not covered in reliable sources and page reads like a puff piece. Meatsgains (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This "award" is a certification process by one company. It's neither notable and from the website for it, not difficult to obtain. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 00:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 00:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as this is not yet solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is about a company, not a product, but regardless, it does not seem to have yet the needed in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to establish its notability. The award is not enough to meet WP:CORP and most of the references are not independent and the rest are standard mentions, no in-depth coverage.--Crystallizedcarbon (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 keep. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hungama in Dubai[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Delete as my searches actually found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SwisterTwister, I think I looked deeper than you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)':[reply]

For instance @SwisterTwister: Here's a decent review from The Hindu. Your missing it does not make it non-existent. So pardon, but what else was missed in poor BEFORE? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

expanded searches:

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

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

WP:INDAFD "Hungama in Dubai" "Masood Ali" "Aziz Naser" "Dheer Charan Srivastav" "DC Srivastav" "Mast Ali"

Keep My own searches found the film many times referred to as a "successful" or "well received" film,[1][2][3][4][5][6] allowing me to make the reasonable conclusion that in 2007 the film received more coverage. Better that issues be addressed than the topic be deleted outright. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MichaelQSchmidt has done a great job trying to improve the article, and I had missed The Hindu Review. I'm not convinced it's quite enough, but it now appears quite borderline. Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this one may squeak by, based on the sources found by Schmidt. In addition to the full review in The Hindu, multiple other reliable sources mention the film in the past tense but in positive ways - calling it successful, or saying that one of the stars is still known for his role in this film. I'm inclined to think it has sufficient notability for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California Waterfowl Association[edit]

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

No notability claimed. No sources listed at all. Hama Dryad (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from a few trivial mentions in local press, I could not find reliable sources to substantiate this group's notability. If another editor can identify reliable, secondary sources that prove this organization is notable, then I am willing to change my vote. In any event, readers should at least take a look at the profile picture from the Chico, California chapter's Facebook page: "America & Ducks -- Nothing Better" (the text appears with a picture of a duck flying proudly in front of an American Flag) ... because there's nothing more American than a bunch of ducks. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They're mentioned in a number of books as being among the major players in the conservation of wetlands in California (see here, for example), and appear to have commissioned/produced reports which are widely used to determine usage/management of the state's wetlands. According to this book, they've leveraged $57 million for work done on more than 65,000 acres. That sounds far from trivial! MeegsC (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MeegsC, have you found any books are articles where the California Waterfowl Association is the subject of the book or article? All I could find was this article from the Daily Republic about a CWA youth program, this two-sentence mention on ducks.org, this press release from the Napa Valley Register, this press release on a CDFW blog, and this summary of the CWA's history, the text of which was copied and pasted from the CWA's website. The links you provide above only consist of (1) a list of google search results and (2) a brief quotation from a member of the CWA (see WP:GOOGLEHITS). However, none of these sources substantiate notability.

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis mine). Significant coverage is defined as coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" (emphasis mine). Likewise, WP:NORG also requires "significant coverage in secondary sources" and that "[t]rivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." None of these sources discuss the organization in any depth or detail. I have seen no secondary sources that provide a detailed account of the organization's history, their significance, or their impact (see also WP:TRIVIALMENTION and WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE). I am certainly willing to change my vote, but I would need to see a few articles or books where the California Waterfowl Association is subject. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft and userfy instead as this is questionably solid but can conceivably become a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for balance, some mention of the local anti-hunting lobby should be included. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The only editor in favor of keeping this article has failed to identify any sources that directly discuss this organization, its history, or its significance. Per WP:CLOSEAFD, the closing admin should weigh this against other relevant policy-based arguments for deletion listed above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:02, 15 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 Ugur Group Companies. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Cooling[edit]

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

Little to no significant coverage from reliable sources. Existing sources aren't significant coverage and (or) not reliable. I see a lot of mentions here, but they aren't enough to make this company notable, fails WP:GNG. Also, seems to fail WP:NCOMP. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable from the current article. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SwisterTwister: That's not really a legitimate argument. Read WP:ARTN. That an existing article does not, in and of itself, show the subject is notable does not meant that the subject is not... the article might just suck. Not claiming this is notable, but you really should check first. Revent^talk 00:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still delete likely as my searches actually found nothing better, only a few links at News and Highbeam and nothing noticeably convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - NeemNarduni2, any Turkish coverage for this company? Thanks and regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 10:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Ugur Group Companies, the latter of which incidentally should be renamed to Ugur Group if it passes AFD. This company's name in Turkish is "Uğur Soğutma", and there are sufficient WP:RS online in Turkish, including national dailies like Hürriyet [7], [8] and several short mentions in the finance news of Milliyet to improve that merged article. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more sources and the official web sites under the group companies today. Please tell me any other thing you need i am a Turkish user. Badursun (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)badursun[reply]

@NeemNarduni2: you might want to reconsider your !vote here too, I guess —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duly reconsidered, thanks, per rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugur Group Companies. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of the article and the digital representative of the company. Can you tell me how else I can improve the article then I get rid of the "deletion" sign. It is effecting the company image. Regards. 85.103.146.22 (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)badursun[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I shouldn't have relisted this, apologies! —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ugur Group Companies, which already contains quite a bit of information about the Cooling subsidiary. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 16 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 for deletion following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dronningens gate (Kristiansand)[edit]

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no better convincing for the applicable notability, nothing else for an article it seems. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability such as a significant event there has been found.Perhaps draftify in case something turns up.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and nom. No chance of notability. NordicDragon Talkpage 08:40, 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) 21:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian IVs gate[edit]

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 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. The consensus is clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kongens gate[edit]

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and similar articles, not remarkable. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the article contains nothing about notable buildings or other sites along the street, nor does there appear to be anything on the street's history that would make it notable. Incidentally, when I saw the title I thought it referred to Kongens gate in Oslo, a street which does have a plausible claim to notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:48, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kronprinsens gate[edit]

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 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) 20:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tordenskjolds gate[edit]

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nordic Dragon 08:30, 15 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) 20:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rådhusgata[edit]

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable street with zero real refs. Manxruler (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS per WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waiz Wasey[edit]

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

Article seems to be a bit promotional where it also lacks notability. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this is currently better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grassroots Out[edit]

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

Three-day old astroturfing group, all sources are based on press coverage of a single event, the launch, and some seem to be primarily based on press releases. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Use of "astroturfing" implies WP:IDONTLIKEIT on part of nominator. Extensive third party coverage: BBC, Daily Mail, Huffington Post UK, Conservative Home, Daily Telegraph. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More press releases, excellent. Perhaps it might even become significant, it's hard to tell when it's less than a hundred hours old. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Campaign that says it is going to compliment whichever main campaign (Leave.EU or Vote Leave) will be chosen as the Leave Campaign by the Electoral Commission. Involves high profile politicians. Mgordon27 20:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really? WP:CRYSTAL applies. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy for now if it is questionably solid and notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with above commenter. Use of "astroturfing" implies WP:IDONTLIKEIT on part of nominator. 15:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.130.228 (talk)
Keep: A quick scan of the news sites shows that "Grassroots Out" already notable, with many mainstream media organisations commenting on the organisation. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 18:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google News (there are other search engines) brings up plenty of coverage in WP:RS. Easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This organisation is likely to grow given the widespread dissatisfaction with the other two exit groups. It may even end up as the official campaigning body. Deletion would be highly premature. --Ef80 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This deletion request is just ridiculous. 131.111.185.68 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There appears to be significant coverage on the campaign organization, and does not fit into WP:1E (that's for people; alternatively, WP:BLP1E is for living people). This is also a developing event that is gaining cultural, societal, and economical significance. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:13, 14 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shuja Hyder[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the performer on multiple TV show soundtrack I believe the subject of this BLP easily meets criterion 10 of MUSICBIO. Two of these performances are supported by the citations on the page. J04n(talk page) 22:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - May meet MUSICBIO but without a doubt fails GNG, I managed to find this but other than that I literally cannot find a thing on him ...., The sources in the article are extremely poor (and one source doesn't even mention him!), Anywho fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and actually draft and userfy instead as this article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 14 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 Drafted and usefied by the user himself (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Brenner[edit]

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

Notability. I can find brief quotes from him in a number of articles (such as the LA Times one used as a reference), but that's him acting as a spokesperson for his company; he is not the topic. The other sources are affiliated (such as the chamber of commerce he's a director of), databases (such as Bloomberg), or things he wrote himself. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Note: Nominator switches !vote to userfy (see below.)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best for now as none of this has better convincing signs of the applicable notability, questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler:I agree with both of you after reviewing the case here. Is there a way I can take down the article, and step it down to a user subpage where I can keep working on it until it becomes notable enough? 716arvin (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a procedural way to properly interrupt the process here, but I have switched my request above to userfy (i.e., the move you're requesting), which is likely to be the end result. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm going to move the page to a user sub-page. I'm assuming this is the correct action process. If not, someone just ping me and let me know the right way. Thanks. 716arvin (talk) 19:59, 8 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. The article's subject is found to be notable, based upon this discussion and the previous consensus found at the last AFD. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy coding[edit]

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

Northeastern US residents sometimes use the term "Cowboy" derogatorily to mean reckless or irresponsible. Sticking the word "Cowboy" in front of the word "Coding" doesn't make it a software development philosophy. It is a Neologism - it just means the same thing as "Cowboy-anything" but applied to code.

The first attempt to delete this article failed because Google has roughly 270 hits on "Cowboy Coding." I could not find *any* that are noteworthy. Most link to this article as their source! Wikipedia has a No Original Research policy which this article clearly violates.

The idea behind this article has some merit, in the sense that there can be an absence of development methodology in the same way that Anarchy is the absence of Government. But someone needs to articulate that much better than this article currently does. The article Software Development Process:Other has a section called "Code and Fix" that seems to roughly summarize this article. Maybe that section could be expanded? Also Capability Maturity Model Level 1 seems like the same idea. Actually, I think that's the closest match to the concept of development anarchy.

One person wrote that the term Rapid Application Development is sometimes used when companies don't want to admit that they have no formal development process. Maybe a section should be added there to say a little more about that. Maybe a list of maverick software developers should be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenPeterson (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 February 2016‎

Here is the talk from the first attempt at deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cowboy_coding — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenPeterson (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 February 2016‎

Keep The term is reliably sourced and meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that? Two entries from the c2.com wiki (see Wiki is not Wikipedia) and Mick West's personal web site (which starts its definition with a link to this article in Wikipedia) do not constitute reliable sources in my estimation. The reference to Google's 20% Time does not use the words "Cowboy Coding". I don't have a copy of Software Project Management by Hughes/Cotterell to check that reference, so it's possible that 1 out of the 5 sources **could** be legitimate. With all the programming resources available online, that is the best the world could come up with in the 8 years this article has been around? Instead of making vague "the sources are out there" statements, it's time to see those sources if people want to save this article.GlenPeterson (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Ward Cunningham's blog is not a reliable source on software development terms? I added more sources from a software development website. I think the problem, based on your comments on your talk page and the article's talk page, is that it's an term used by American software developers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources. Andrew D. (talk) 23:56, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angangba Mayek[edit]

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

I just closed the first AfD for lack of response. It has been two days since the second relist and no comments other than the nominator. On this AfD, I will ask for deletion for failure to satisfy WP:NFILM, rather than on WP:CRYSTAL as argued in the first AfD. It was just released on January 19, 2016 and no indication at all that it satisfies the notability guidelines. A film's mere existence is NOT enough to warrant an article. Safiel (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Safiel (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Safiel (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FILMNOT -- no evidence of the film's release, production or significant coverage by independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this article seems not yet set for an article. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 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.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MorDance[edit]

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

The article is just a list of gigs. No claim of notability. Bazj (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous 25[edit]

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

Unreferenced speculation per WP:CRYSTAL. All I can find about this online is some speculation on blogs, and nothing in WP:Reliable sources. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if speculation, merge if the release is confirmed. No need for a standalone article at this time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there no convincing signs of an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viaedge[edit]

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

A run of the mill software company that fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH, and any number of other policies and guidelines. (All my best wishes to the proprietors and coders - I use a Citrix app at work) Shirt58 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly nothing else to suggest hinting better. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any evidence this company or its products are notable. I went looking for analyst attention (e.g. Gartner, Forrester) and could find none. SJK (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could find no sources to establish notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:10, 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 no consensus. Consensus is leaning keep, but not enough input was received to close the discussion as such. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Nassar[edit]

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

She has some coverage but is only known for winning a minor beauty pageant and her blog. Non notable Gbawden (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable. Much of the press coverage she has received is in Arabic or French. If you search مایا نصار, you will see. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
Delete for now at best and restart when better, questionable signs of a solidly better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly good and well sourced article of a person who enjoys regional notability as evidenced by coverage from foreign press (alyaqaza and NinaIraq). More source can be added, I will work on that ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG per sources already in the article and per additional sources in the comments above. Cavarrone 21:11, 15 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 Teresa Hooley. There's reaonable consensus here that keeping the article in its current condition would not be the right thing to do. Unfortunately, there's no clear agreement on an alternative. The redirect seems like a reasonable average of the various suggestions, but the redirect suggestion also included, a slight expansion of the mention of him there, so I'm really going to call this a merge. Whoever does the merge should go with the spirit of a slight expansion, i.e. don't just take all the existing text and plop it down in the new location. Rather, cherry-pick the most significant facts.

If somebody can come up with better sourcing, which would support a stand-alone article, no reason this can't be broken back out at a future time. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Terah Hooley[edit]

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

Tricky situation here, where the article is in a completely deletable state but might be salvageable. This is a biography of a person which makes and sources no claim of notability in the text itself; as written, the entire article is actually "Subject was born, the end". Technically, that makes this a speedy A7 — but a potential claim of notability for him is made (although not actually sourced there either) in the article about his sister, Teresa Hooley: "was decorated in the Great War". That is a strong enough potential claim of notability that I don't feel comfortable speedying this without giving it a chance at rescue — but the article was created on December 7 and the creator hasn't edited Wikipedia at all since December 24, so it's unclear that asking them to beef up the article and its sourcing will accomplish anything. And, of course, even "decorated in the Great War" isn't an automatic inclusion pass if it's not properly sourceable, and also depends in large part upon what particular decoration he received — so that requires further investigation rather than conferring an automatic freebie just because it's claimed. Accordingly, I'm more than willing to withdraw this if somebody's able to get it up to snuff — but it needs to be deleted if it's just going to linger around in this form. Of course, without prejudice against future recreation if it can be written and sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rather wonder whether the nominator did any detailed WP:BEFORE, because this book on the Battle of the Somme is the first of two entries on a GBooks search and gives a decent six-line biography of the subject in a footnote. He fought in the Battle of the Somme and, unlike most of the other officers in his battalion, survived. The decoration he obtained was the Military Cross, after later military action, and by the time he died, he had been promoted to Major. Basically, a reasonably impressive military career, but not automatically notable enough for a standalone article. A redirect to Teresa Hooley, and a slight expansion of the mention of him there, would, I think, be in order if a reliable source can be found confirming that he was her brother (I can find plenty of unreliable sources for this, and don't seriously doubt it, but...). Otherwise, we are going to need enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG - I think it worth keeping this AfD open for the moment to see if anyone can find such sourcing, but I suspect nobody will. PWilkinson (talk) 00:34, 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 16:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source (I am unsure how reliable it is, it appears to be staffed by volunteers and employed staff with an editor-in-chief) has a biographical article, fully attributed albeit to local papers, on Terah Hooley, "one of leading world authorities on lace manufacture". Terah Hooley had two sons and one daughter, Ernest Terah Hooley, Basil Terah Hooley and Teresa Mary Butler, presumably her maiden name was Teresa Hooley. In the Teresa Hooley article, she marries Frank H. Butler. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Basil has a biographical entry in de Ruvigny's Roll of Honour, Vol II, Pt 5, pg 88. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect: Redirect to Teresa Hooley per User:PWilkinson. Insufficient coverage to satisfactorily meet WP:GNG. Military Medal (awarded to over 135,000 people) does not meet ANYBIO#1 per WP:SOLDIER, and nor are any other of its criteria met. That said, additional sources are below and while notability is marginal there's enough to make a small tidy article. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources: Teresa Hooley dedicates a poem to BTH in her Songs of the Open, and apparently planted three copper beeches in his memory. A scan of de Ruivigny's is online. Birth and census docs are also online. Wedding is in Nottingham Evening Post 23 Jun 1915. More pointers to evidence are in this forum ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 15 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 Federal Way School District. The article's subject is found to lack the required notability to have a stand-alone article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Way Public Academy

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

Not a diploma granting high school, so not automatically notable, no indication of ORGDEPTH. Note that an attempt was made to redirect it to the school district, which will be the inevitable outcome here, but an IPv6 editor reverted the redirect. So here we are..... John from Idegon (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Educates to the school-leaving age in many countries so does count as a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the page should be closed. It is important for individual schools to have their own wikipedia page for incoming students can refer to it as well as for logistical purposes.

Furthermore, the school is very qualified within the district. It ranks in the top 3 college-preparatory academies when contrasted with the other learning institutions situated within the district boundaries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:200:680:1185:e233:3914:87fa (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2 February 2016‎

Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. Just Chilling (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IS NOT A HIGH SCHOOL^[1] In the US, grades 6-10 is a middle school. And local sources do not establish notability under ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grades 6-8 represent middle schools. The grade at which a leaving certificate is issued marks the boundary of a high school. In the US that is Grade 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Chilling (talk • contribs)

- - Just Chilling, Do you have a source for that statement? I have never heard of getting a "certification" for finishing middle school, and High school beginning at grade 10 is just plain false. Most high schools start at grade 9. Some middle schools start at grade 5. What is unambiguous is that when you finish high school, you are done with your basic education. Very few students leave school at the end of the 10th grade, and with only a few exceptions, the reason students leave prior to the end of 12th grade is failure. If you do not get a recognized diploma for successful completion, the institution is not a high school. Only high schools have automatic notability. Perhaps you are confusing UK practice with US practice? John from Idegon (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to school district It is indeed a junior high school. It is possible that later grades will be added in future years, but calling it a college preparatory school is true only in the sense that it is part of a college preparatory curriculum after the final two years elsewhere, and that it is assumed that the students in it will , when they finish in the actual high school , go on to college. I checked this in detail with their web site--see http://schools.fwps.org/pa/ , and more specifically, http://schools.fwps.org/pa/files/2015/09/201516.jpg?f5991c for their class schedule. If we do not have an article on the district, this can go to draft space as part of one until it can be started. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Federal Way School District as this seems best. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We generally consider all schools that educate to 16 to be secondary schools as that is the school-leaving age in much of the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two sources were enough as provided on main article. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FYI, school leaving age in the State of Washington, USA, is 18.^[2] What the school leaving age is anywhere else in the world may be is totally irrelevant. No Child will ever walk out the door of this school and be done. And to those that proffered the argument "sources should exist", I ask "Where?" Local schools are rarely covered beyond locally. To nominate an article for deletion, BEFORE is required. Although in letter it does not apply to !votes, the spirit is there. To make that kind of arguement, in at least one case a cut and paste that I've seen in other AfD discussions, is a waste of the community's time. John from Idegon (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Search for Public Schools - School Detail for Federal Way Public Academy". ed.gov. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ "Age range for compulsory school attendance and special education services, and policies on year-round schools and kindergarten programs, by state: Selected years, 1997 through 2008". ed.gov. Retrieved 13 February 2016.

Merge per DGG. Comments about "the school-leaving age in much of the world" disregard the fact the school does not educate to the school-leaving age in the particular part of the world that it is actually in. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Rodriguez, Carrie (2014-05-21). "Students shine at Federal Way Public Academy; lottery determines admission". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Out of 143 students who applied for the Federal Way Public Academy (FWPA), only the first 60 incoming sixth graders that Curtis called made it into the school. The other 83 students were placed on a waiting list, again, via the lottery.
  ...
  FWPA provides students a rigorous, challenging academic program. The school’s mission is to provide a college preparatory curriculum for students in grades six through 10. About 300 students attend the small school each year and are placed through the Choice Enrollment program via a lottery. Though the school is open to all students, more than 60 percent of those who apply on average are turned away.
2. Low, Kyra (2008-12-13). "Federal Way Public Academy celebrates 10 years". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
3. "Public Academy not adding 10th grade this fall". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. 2002-03-13. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
4. "Federal Way Public Academy supports Kenyan school for AIDS orphans". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. 2012-10-31. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
5. Ciepiela, Elizabeth (2008-06-13). "Public Academy head sets goals for next year". Federal Way Mirror. Sound Publishing. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  When she was in the 10th grade, a nun inspired Federal Way Public Academys new principal, Judy Kraft.
  Sister Matthew Walker was a strict disciplinarian who taught Kraft how to write, introduced her to Fyodor Dostoevsky and Walt Whitman and quizzed the class each morning on the nightly news.
  "I had to write. I had to think. I had to speak. I had to work. And I loved every minute of it," Kraft said.
  Today, Kraft brings her private school education and her career as a teacher and assistant principal with her to her new job as principal of Federal Way's Public Academy.
  Kraft began July 1, following the footsteps of Ray Griffin, the school's founder and first principal.
6. Broom, Jack (2013-03-24). "We Day concert/rally expected to draw 15,000". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  That’s already happening. Federal Way Public Schools, which is sending more than 1,200 students and chaperones to We Day, has a districtwide focus on service, which includes raising money for an adopted village in Sierra Leone.
  In addition, individual schools have projects of their own. Federal Way Public Academy, an academics-focused alternative school, is sending about a third of its 306 students to We Day.
  Projects at that school include the fashion show to benefit homeless teens in the Puget Sound area, and an annual carnival to help build a school in a village in Kenya.
7. Maynard, Steve (2004-02-02). "Federal Way academy to dedicate building - 'Success': Public prep school uses Socratic style". The News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  The warehouse-type building once was home for the Deluxe Check Printing Co.
  Now it's the deluxe $6 million home of the Federal Way Public Academy, an intensely focused college preparatory program for sixth- through 10th-graders.
  The public can view the new campus at a dedication ceremony Thursday night.
  Founded in 1999 by Federal Way Public Schools, the 285-student academy had been meeting in portables on the Illahee Middle School campus. It moved into the 34,841-square-foot renovated building in early October.
  The academy stresses math, science, technology, Spanish, writing, speaking and leadership skills. Its 13 teachers focus on Socratic, seminar-style teaching which emphasizes discussion. Sixth and 10th grades were added in the fall.
  Test scores for academy students are far higher than state averages.
8. Sullivan, Paula Lavigne (1999-08-30). "New school to challenge gifted children - Federal Way district's academy will offer immersion learning". The News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  The Federal Way Public Academy opens for the first time Wednesday to about 120 students. It is a public junior high school for smart students who want to be immersed in learning.
  Students take advanced lessons in math, science, English and computers along with their choice of foreign language. There's no football team. No band. No drama club. The school is three portable units chopped up into five classrooms and one office in a parking lot behind Illahee Junior High.
  Its creation was tinged with controversy from those who called the academy elitist and suggested instead the district improve honors courses at the six junior high schools.
9. Cafazzo, Debbie (1998-09-16). "Idea For Rigorous Federal Way Junior High Academy to Get Hearing - Proponent to Share Views About Controversial School at 2 Public Meetings". The News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  The Federal Way School Board gave tentative approval to the academy concept in April. But the board asked academy proponent Charles Griffin to return in November with more details on what would be taught in the school, where it could be housed and other issues.
  Griffin said he's been working on those details over the summer.
  Griffin, an administrator at the private Annie Wright School in Tacoma, developed the idea for a public school academy for high achievers while he was working on a doctoral degree in education at the University of Washington. He proposed the idea to the Federal Way School District, he said, because Superintendent Tom Vander Ark has a reputation for innovation.
  Griffin said he wants to offer the same kind of rigorous, high-standard academic work available in many private schools to public school students whose families might not be able to afford private schooling.
  Federal Way Public Academy would be a small school, likely located in a portable classroom building on an existing campus. It would not offer the full breadth of classes and activities available at traditional junior high schools, but it would instead appeal to students who want to focus intensely on high-level academics.
10. Pemberton-Butler, Lisa (1999-09-01). "Shh! It's Almost A Charter School - Federal Way Academy Sets Its Own Curriculum". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Freshly painted and surrounded by towering Douglas fir trees, three portable buildings are home to an unusual school that will be one of the most aggressive experiments with education reform in the state.
  The Federal Way Public Academy, a rigorous college-prep junior high that opens today, joins a growing network of community initiated schools. But there's a striking difference between it and the dozens of other alternative, or "choice," public schools in the state.
  In exchange for extensive freedom in how they do things, academy officials have signed a contract giving the School Board the right to close the school in two years if it fails to meet the high standards it has promised to attain.
  ...
  Under its contract with the district, the Public Academy will handle its own budget, staffing and programs - a practice becoming more common across the district as it strives to form a system of choice schools, officials say.
  With an annual operating budget, including staff salaries, of about $1 million, the school will receive the same district funding per student as other schools, Isaman said. It just has more flexibility in the way it spends it.
11. Cafazzo, Debbie (1998-11-24). "College-Prep School OK'D in Federal Way - Board Votes 3-2 To Set Up Academy For 120 Students". Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  A divided Federal Way School Board granted approval for a small college-preparatory academy Monday night.
  The board voted 3-2 to approve the Federal Way Public Academy, which is to open to 120 seventh- and eighth-graders in September 1999.
  Board members Holly Isaman, Linda Hendrickson and Jim Storvick voted to approve the school, while board President Ann Murphy and board member Joel Marks were opposed.
  The school is designed to offer a rigorous curriculum to high-achieving students from throughout the school district. It was proposed earlier this year by Charles Griffin, an administrator at the private Annie Wright School in Tacoma.
  He developed the idea for a public college-prep school while working toward a doctorate at the University of Washington. He has said he wants to offer the same kind of high-standard academic work available in many private schools to public school students.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Federal Way Public Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With significant coverage in the Federal Way Mirror, The News Tribune, and The Seattle Times, it is clear that Federal Way Public Academy passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The article should be kept, not merged, regardless of whether it is a considered a high school or not. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Local schools will be covered in local papers. All of the sources you mention are local papers (Sea-tac). Hence, still fails ORGDEPTH. And just in case it wasn't clear, as the nominator, the outcome I was looking for is Merge to Federal Way School District. John from Idegon (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle Times is a major regional newspaper, the largest daily newspaper in the state of Washington.
From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience (my bolding):
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
Since The Seattle Times is a regional newspaper, Federal Way Public Academy passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Cunard (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle Times article hat still does not show notability beyond the immediate region. This is a perennial problem for the local coverage by major newspapers, The other articles are press releases wherever published. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This concept is quite unique. One can hope that somewhere down the line a paper will be written and vetted on it. Until theses academic sources are created, though, we are at TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Federal Way Public Schools. Not a high school so WP:OUTCOMES doesn't apply, and the coverage is only from local sources, so it doesn't appear to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 17 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaStella Winery[edit]

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

Company exists, but sources are mainly from the website of the business, and sales links. G-hits are mainly user reviews, etc... The article is very advertorial, and just lists products and staff; no assertion of particular notability. Creator posted multiple wineries, similar issues. superβεεcat 04:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable, restart later if better at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:20, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Le Vieux Pin Winery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Company exists, but sources are mainly from the website of the business, and sales links. G-hits are mainly user reviews, etc... The article is very advertorial, and just lists products and staff; no assertion of particular notability superβεεcat 04:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Questionably notable local winery. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:19, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RotoQL[edit]

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

The individual Maxdalury is barely notable, I don't think his RotoQL venture passes WP:N; refs have passing mentions. superβεεcat 01:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied this as spam, it's still promotional in tone and non-notable as per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as the article is not yet better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 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.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under-16 Ball Hockey World Championship[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a lower-level championship in a minor, non-professional sport. Doesn't appear to satisfy general notability requirements or any of the topical notability guidelines for sports. RL0919 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What about also including the Under-18 Ball Hockey World Championships because none of those have sources either. Matt294069 is coming 00:26, 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 15:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I had predicted that not even the page creator could be bothered to comment on this deletion, I would have just used WP:PROD and this would be deleted already. --RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is not yet better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:QUORUM (I have disregarded SwisterTwister's !vote as the argument is not clear). Closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Salem Sugui[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No suitable coverage online found via Google. Every one of the online sources given in the article is either a dead end, a work by him or associated with him, a passing mention, or else has no mention of him at all. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - virtually nothing about this person on any of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best if the article is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ya sh ! 00:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed during Euromaidan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks was deleted on December 20th, mainly per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. You can also "take a pick" from ^theWOLFchild's brilliant list back in the other AfD discussion (WP:BIO1E, WP:BLP, WP:NLIST, WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). While I don't necessarily agree with most of the arguments there, I see no reason why this article shouldn't be deleted as well. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This turns into an indiscriminate list, which is something we avoid on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best as this would seem acceptable but it may simply be best mentioned through the main article. Notifying 1st AfDers Fram, Clarityfiend, Amortias, Spirit of Eagle and Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename The term "Heavenly Hundred", which refers to the killed Euromaidan protestors, has gotten some substantial coverage in English sources[14][15][16][17], the Ukrainian government has named an award after them and several memorials have been built. As such, I'm not particularly convinced by indiscriminate arguments, since many of the deceased fall within a clearly defined and notable group. I think it would be preferable for the article to be written primarily about the Heavenly Hundred with a list of the specific members attached under a collapsible at the end. If we wanted to go this route, then a lot of the information needed to build an article about the Heavenly Hundred already exists within the current article; we'd just need to re-arrange, re-word and snip a few things here and there, plus do some general clean-up. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Each individual in the article's sourced and it's a lot more than just a list, There's all of the history included as well, I have to agree with my previous !vote ... It's well sources and it still passes GNG... –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it should be renamed to "Heavenly Hundred" because it is the common name for these people and ussualy these people are mentioned as "Heavenly Hundred". There are some reasons to keep the article:

This article is about the extremely notable thing in history of Ukraine. These people changed history of Ukraine for a future century. Notability of this article is absolutely obvious: "Heavenly Hundred" have been written about and shown in hundreds, if not thousands, newspapers and TV-news in nearly every country of the world (in Ukraine, in USA, in UK, in Poland, in Germany, in Lithuania and I can write thousands of these links). It have been much talken about in whole world, and was on a front of ukrainians mind for the the first half of 2014. They been mentioned by many politics, not only in Ukraine, but around the world. There are even movies about them. The notability of this article is colossal.
Nearly all of them were recognized as Heroes of Ukraine which makes them even more notable.
It is not just a list, here are a lot of facts. In this article the list itself takes a bit more than a half of page with other half being facts, and there are enough facts for article to exist even without the list.
If the article Casualties of the September 11 attacks exists, this article has the same right to exist.
From WP:NOTMEMORIAL:
Wikipedia pages are not:
...
4. Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.

Mark this: must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. This article perfectly satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. This rule is about not creating articles for any person dead and is the particular case of the rule of not creating articles about yourself or your friends.

--Tohaomg (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems to be that some misunderstanding of the rules took place. There is clearly written in the rule, that articles about deceased people could not be created only if this people are not notable. Since there are 120 references on the page in question, its notability is undisputed.--Trydence (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not memorial list. Almost all of members of list are Heroes of Ukraine, so it is it list of notable people famous for notable event.--Anatoliy (Talk) 20:40, 15 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. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural venues in Ireland[edit]

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

No narrative or explanation of what is a "cultural venue", information contained covers various types of venues, include school venues, conference centres, theatres and music venues. Article is based on the creators interpretation of what should be included. Murry1975 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Venue capacities are uncited causing WP:VER issues, inclusion criteria is selective causing WP:OR issues. But the biggest issue under the LISTNOTABILITY guidelines is that the subjects of the list don't appear anywhere else together. Probably because of the unclear inclusion criteria, the list subjects have not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Which is what WP:LISTN guidelines expect. If not deleted, at the very least, the content should likely be merged/redirected to one of any number of (less subjective) existing lists - like List of Irish theatres and theatre companies and/or List of Irish cultural institutions. Not sure what additional value this list adds. Guliolopez (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps if still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete no clear criteria for list inclusion. LibStar (talk) 09:09, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's Gone[edit]

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

I have added a book reference, but otherwise there are very few WP:RS that I can find anywhere. I think the award from the Chicago Film Festival should count for something, but I can't find a reliable source for this claim. There has not been significant coverage of this film in the media or elsewhere, so in my view it is dubious whether it meets the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this currently suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 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.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Day Hollywood Died[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The only non-Wikipedia source given in the article is a fawning review on someone's personal blog. The only reliable third-party source I could find is this one which predates the film's release and says little beyond it being mysterious. That's not enough for an encyclopedia article about the film. Huon (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that the Inside Film article already is cited in the article. Unfortunately it does not confirm the sentence it's cited for. Huon (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Below are a list of news article in relation to the Film to vouch for article inclusion. These were previously not included in the article. I will now include them in the page also. Please note that the cited sentence from inside film was added later by another party and not included in the original article. I am in the process of finding more sources and will list and include also.

The Torch, 2nd May 2012, Local Film that's on the Rise, Page 4 - Film and Company Write up. The Day Hollywood Died - Write up in the Torch

FirstPost, 6th January 2012, The Day Hollywood Died Link for Firstpost write up

Rouse Hill Stanhope Garden News, 10th October, Article by Kylie Stephens, Homegrown: Big Film on Tiny Budget Homegrown: Big Film on Tiny Budget

News Local Hornsby Advocate, 10th May 2012, Article by Declan Gooch, Mt Colah Actor's Film Impresses Europe

StMarys Star, Article by Kylie Stephens, Young Actor heads to the top of his field Young actor heads to the top of his field

If.com.au, Rising Pictures announces Short film comp and date of The Day Hollywood Died NickyR2015 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sufficiently notable. Aeonx (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the extra sources are more convincing, more would be betterAtlantic306 (talk) 03:20, 1 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 // 03:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as simply none of this currently suggests a better notable and improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Outside of a little indiscriminate hyper local coverage there is a lack of coverage about this film. No national reviews. No major awards. Lacks national distribution. The industry IF article is not enough by itself. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 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.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Wombats[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, no sigcov at all JTtheOG (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand BlueSalix (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please show sources that show that it meets WP:SIGCOV? JTtheOG (talk) 21:37, 25 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 // 03:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete at best for now, draft & userfy and then move to articlespace again because it may be notable for Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Association_football but there's nothing for a currently better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:15, 8 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. Bishonen | talk 12:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DPI Specialty Foods[edit]

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

No claims of notability. The claims and the sources are focussed on the ownership of the business which doesn't seem to be notable in its own right. Bazj (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any WP:RS anywhere. ww2censor (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ornua. Subsidiary of a large corporation in the same market and business just seems to operate under a different name overseas. Source. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would not merge to Ornua It is no longer a subsidiary of Ornua nor is it operating the same business in the US as Ornua operates in Europe. DPI is a food distributor. Ornua is a manufacturer of dairy goods. The article is still in its infancy and although it only has an overview and ownership sections at the moment, it can evolve into a more detailed article in terms of its history, customer base, etc. The company is large in terms of revenue and has a significant workforce and history according to the sources cited. One of its competitors, UNFI has a Wiki article as well.Expandinglight5 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 25 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 // 06:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. In a search I found minimal coverage about the ownership change, and nothing except press releases about the company itself. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Taylor, Charlie (2015-12-15). "Ornua sells majority stake in US food business DPI: Former Irish Dairy Board understood to have made €30m gain on sale". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Ornua, formerly the Irish Dairy Board, has sold a majority stake in its US speciality foods distribution business DPI for an undisclosed sum.
  California-based DPI Speciality Foods, which sells gourmet, ethnic and organic foods to retailers, quick service restaurants and foodservice operators, through eight distribution centres across the US, is to be acquired by Chicago-headquartered Arbor Investments. The transaction closed on Monday last.
  ...
  With approximately 1,800 employees and annual revenues in excess of $1 billion, DPI is one of the largest specialty food distributors in the US.
2. McLoughlin, Gavin (2015-12-15). "Ornua sells majority stake in US food distribution business". Irish Independent. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Dairy co-op Ornua - formerly the Irish Dairy Board - has sold a majority stake in its US specialty food distribution business DPI Specialty Foods.
  The buyer is food & beverage private equity firm Arbor Investments. The sale price was not disclosed but Independent.ie understands Ornua has made a gain of over €30m out of the deal, and is holding on to a 20pc stake.
  Ornua chief executive Kevin Lane said the proceeds would be invested in Ornua's core business of building routes to market for Irish dairy products. It will maintain a minority stake in DPI.
3. "Principle oversees improvements of DPI facility". Daily Herald. 2015-09-30. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Headquartered in Ontario, Calif., DPI Specialty Foods is a principal supplier of top quality perishable and nonperishable food items from five continents.
4. Rowe, Anitra (2004-12-09). "Distribution plant OK'd for south side of village". Arlington Heights Post. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  DPI Midwest is an importer and distributor of specialty perishable and non-perishable products to the retail deli/bakery food service market.
  ...
  DPI Midwest has been in Arlington Heights since the mid-1970s and currently employs about 140 people. It is owned by the Irish Dairy Board, and its hallmark line is the Kerrygold brand.
5. "Perrier Unit Sells Distribution Plus". The Buffalo News. 1990-02-20. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  A subsidiary of Source Perrier S.A., which also owns Sorrento Cheese Co. Inc. of Buffalo, has sold its Distribution Plus Inc. group to an Irish company, An Bord Bainne.
  The Perrier subsidiary, Societe des Caves de Roquefort, said it has sold an 80 percent equity interest in DPI, which is headquartered in Roseland, N.J. DPI markets, sells and distributes refrigerated foods found in the dairy and delicatessen sections of supermarkets.
  DPI will continue to distribute products manufactured by Sorrento in the United States and by Society des Caves de Roquefort's subsidiaries in France.
6. "US stake sold by Perrier - Irish Dairy Board". The Times. 1990-01-26. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Source Perrier has sold a controlling stake in its American holding company to the Irish Dairy Board, which is to develop its cheese business.
  Perrier said the Irish Dairy Board would take 80 per cent in Distribution Plus Inc, a holding company.
7. Marrazzo, Amanda (2004-09-22). "Distribution site clears a hurdle". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Distribution Plus, a wholesaler and distributor of dry and frozen specialty foods, operates in a 67,000-square-foot building just east of that site. The current facility, built in 1956, could be sold or kept as storage space.
  The company, once owned by Skandia Foods, serves grocery and convenience stores; hotels; and private country clubs in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. Distribution Plus makes 6,000 deliveries a day.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow DPI Specialty Foods to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Irish Independent, "With approximately 1,800 employees and annual revenues in excess of $1 billion, DPI is one of the largest specialty food distributors in the US." This fact and the sources I've presented here strongly support that DPI Specialty Foods is notable and should have a stand-alone article. Cunard (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for reasons given by Cunard. Thank for exhaustively digging for the reliable references. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 07:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They are mere notices,not substantial sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are not mere notices. They provide "deep coverage" of the subject, which has "approximately 1,800 employees and annual revenues in excess of $1 billion" and is "one of the largest specialty food distributors in the US" according to The Irish Independent. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization."
The sources describe the company's history and its products, so it is possible to "write more than a very brief, incomplete stub" about it.
Cunard (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE - simple announcements of company business, does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 17 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss Media Ltd[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Brycehughes (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(speak now) 07:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(speak now) 07:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(speak now) 07:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:15, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Under-16 Individual Speedway Championship[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. an under 16 championship is rarely notable . Could not find any coverage in gnews and gbooks. And I doubt it was covered by major media in Australia. It also seems this article is just a results listing. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as I think it would be in the local papers of that area where its being held. But I don't know on that part. Matt294069 is coming 00:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 08:01, 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) 05:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as my searches found nothing immediately better. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found a reasonable number of primary references. A very small number of weak secondary references. It does need to be properly referenced. Aoziwe (talk) 11:42, 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.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Fisher[edit]

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

Failed (BLP)PROD with barely any references at all and no claim of notability. Arguably should be speedily deleted under criterion A7. Waggers TALK 11:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any sources (reliable or otherwise) with web searches (lots of other Joanna Fishers show up, but even "joanna fisher london" doesn't show anything on this particular "Joanna Fisher"). -IagoQnsi (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 18:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:14, 8 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 The Avett Brothers#Discography. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Country Was[edit]

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

Fails any form of notability. Editor restored after redirected. I redirected months ago after WP:BEFORE and I could find no sources. The AllMusic entry is only an entry, not a review. The other entry is not a WP:RS. I could find none at the time I originally redirected the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unlike other albums by the band, this one does not meet WP:NALBUM. A blurb on bans page would be enough.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 11:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this is unlikely independent for an article. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 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.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dermaflage[edit]

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

Not sure this is notable Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, author of this article here - I'm doing my best to create a non-biased article about this company. At the advice of some of the editors I've made the article as neutral as possible, and I'm happy to continue editing the article if needed. I do believe this entry fits the criteria as notable - it's been written about in many credible news sources, and is a legitimate entity. Please let me know what more I can do to fit the Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks, Evan Evkatz4 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and draft & userfy if needed as the current article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evkatz4, you asked what you can do. The main thing you could do would be to find good sources. Right now you have 2 patent sources (patents do not support notability, see wp:corp on that); 2 articles in the Memphis Daily news, which is a local paper and notability requires at least regional but preferably national coverage for companies; and 1 short blog post from the Dallas Morning News which doesn't say much about the company. When I do a lookup on Dermaflage I mainly get a lot of sales sites. So all of that adds up to -- not notable (at this time). If the product is new then it may be notable some time in the future. LaMona (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muskoka Bible Centre[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about an organization, whose strongest claim of notability ("Canada's largest") cannot be verified anywhere but its own self-published content about itself. I searched both Google and ProQuest for improved referencing, and came up bone-dry. In ProQuest, for example, it gets just two hits on its current name and five on its former one — but all seven of them are just glancing namechecks rather than substantive coverage of the type it would take to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG, and exactly zero of them support the "Canada's largest" claim. And a Google search doesn't bring up any valid sources that aren't simply duplicates of the ProQuest hits. An organization is not entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because its own primary source web presence verifies that it exists; it must be the subject of sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion and referencing requirements, but this simply isn't. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep the Proquest articles - here are 2 anyone can access [18], [19], from a major Toronto daily, so verify that it is a large tract of Chrisitan recreational-use land. Similar older stuff in the Canadian papers [20], [21]. Those articles point to the fact that it operated a "Camp Widjiitiwin", and that does produce sources [22]. Two of the pastors self-published a book in 2010 Muskoka Miracles: 80th Anniversary By John F. Holliday; Richard D. Holliday [23], not useful for notability, but could help with sourcing and certainly puts this place in the category of Chataqua-like church camps of that era. Overall I'd say that the place can be sourced, it just needs sourcing. expansion. an editor with an interest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 27 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 // 08:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but heavily tag for expansion and sourcing. It is always difficult to tell if something is notable when the article is so brief. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at best as this may be improvable. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 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.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MagnetX[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Brycehughes (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any secondary coverage at all -- just the publisher's website and the product listing on Amazon.com. -IagoQnsi (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as the current article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Fear[edit]

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

An article about this band was previously deleted in September 2010, but this one was created in November 2011 with different content. Over four years later, this band still fails to assert notability by lacking to garner any significant coverage from reliable sources independent from the subject and still fail to meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND. They are simply not notable. — ξ ^xplicit 07:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this still seems questionable as with the 1st AfD. Notifying the only still active AfDer Armbrust. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
KyloWrenCubeJedi (talk · contribs) wrote on the article:

Article considered for deletion, however according to wiki guidelines:
Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
4. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre.
So, is metal, korean metal, melodic death metal, melodeath, melodic death core or korean death core considered a notable genre? How else is one considered noteable without being cited in journals such as Wikipedia? really. They were the only ones to get a foot into metal hammer and other publications (interviews) to get people to come have a look at others or allow others to dream of a career in music, reaching beyond the peninsula.

— User:KyloWrenCubeJedi 09:15, 25 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Here are three sources about the subject:
1. KyloWrenCubeJedi (talk · contribs) uploaded to Commons the file File:FatalFear, Planet Metal Feature, Metal Hammer issue 203 (April 2010).jpg. The image is currently tagged as being without permission. The image's description is "Feature of the South Korean band FatalFear" from Metal Hammer, issue 203, April 2010 and the permission section says "Permission Given in 2010 for Wiki usage by Editor James Gill".
  KyloWrenCubeJedi, would you follow the instructions at commons:Image permission and send a copy of the written permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org?
  The Metal Hammer article is titled "Fatal Fear. South Korea: Brit frontman goes Far East Beyond Driven." It notes:
  South Korean band Fatal Fear have just finished recording their second album. Hammer spoke to vocalism Ernon 'Ed' Edward Campbell: "We took a break after our show in Seoul where we supported Arch Enemy and recorded some new music," he explains. While Ed visited family in the UK (he's the only Brit in the band), the rest of the band were in the studio writing and recording. "We added the finishing touches in February after I returned to Korea."
  The new album follows their 2006 and 2008 demos and a 2009 EP, Apocalyptic Crusade, all released via their own independent imprint, Realize Records, who have signed bands from the Far East (Korea, Japan, Indonesia) and some from Europe (Sweden, Germany and France).
  The band is completed by guitarists Blind666 and PigxHead, bassist Kim Ssung and drummer Wook.
  ...
  They currently have their sights set on Europe and the UK, having had a great response to a track placed on the UK-based Microblast compilation in 2009.
  http://www.myspace.com/bandfatalfear
2. Baker, Ross (September 2010). "Rising Korean Extreme Metal with a British Flavour". Powerplay Rock and Metal Magazine. Archived from the original on 2016-01-31. Retrieved 2016-01-31.
  The article notes:
  
  Hailing from Busan, South Korea and featuring a Canadian on drums and a British-born vocalist of Polish and Jamaican descent, Fatalfear’s slamming melodic death metal has a truly international flavour. It’s one thing to come up as an underground act who were fortunate enough to land that big gig supporting a metal sensation but it is quite another to have achieved such a milestone in a country where the metal scene is virtually unknown other than to the artists which operate within it.
  ...
  Active since 2004, things really came together last year when singer Ed rejoined the fold as vocalist following the departure of frontman Wan-U (who now fronts hardcore band Gwamegi). With Campbell the band recorded an E.P. “Apocalyptic Crusade” and played their biggest gig to date supporting the mighty Arch Enemy in front of one and a half screaming metal fans in the South Korean capital Seoul. Ed relates.
  ...
  2010 has seen the addition of Canadian-born drummer Kirk Martin to the fold as well as the band gaining a slot on the UK-based compilation “Microblast 2”, which was their first release on these shores.
  According to http://www.newsstand.co.uk/190-Heavy-Metal-Magazines/323-Subscribe-to-POWERPLAY-Magazine-Subscription.aspx^WebCite:
  Powerplay is a niche rock and heavy metal music magazine from the UK, which is not to be confused with the ice hockey publication of the same name. With plenty of interviews with rock legends, reviews on new releases and interesting features on new developments in the industry we think any fan of rock and heavy metal music will love Powerplay magazine. It is released every month and likes to feature the best players and singers around at the moment.
  Buy a single copy or subscription to Powerplay Magazine. Current issues sent same day up to 3pm! All magazines sent by 1st Class Mail UK & by Airmail worldwide (bar UK over 750g which may go 2nd Class).
  This establishes that Powerplay Rock and Metal Magazine is a print magazine.
3. The band's Facebook page is https://www.facebook.com/FatalFearMetal. I reviewed a post on the Facebook page, which says:
  Does anyone know how to enter a wiki discussion (page for deletion)?
  The Bands page is up for deletion and, the main reason is that there arent many reliable sources (aside from the page scan from metal hammer?!?) which is a result of the scene being virtually unknown globally...due to pages like this getting deleted (see where im going here) We were the only band to be featured in the magazine EVER from Korea...that i know of, and its one of the top magazines for the genrer of metal in the world....so, its something that should remain for others to follow/be inspired by etc...also, the band never formally disbanded. just on a ong term hiatus and I no longer live in Korea (might again in the future, though no plans to at present...as my wife is Korean and I have been chatting with Guitarist Jin-Su about working on tracks over the internet while we are both involved with diofferent projects in our respective locales)
  Of particular note is the sentence "We were the only band to be featured in the magazine EVER from Korea...that i know of, and its one of the top magazines for the genrer of metal in the world".
  If citation information from the Korean magazine EVER could be provided (the date the article was published), then this would be a third source about the subject.
  KyloWrenCubeJedi, would you provide this information and any other articles from reliable sources about the band? Two sources are enough to establish notability, but additional sources will strongly establish that the band passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the above sources meet WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 03:37, 1 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 // 06:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I requested reversal of the NAC because although likely unintentional, it looked like a supervote, and perhaps more importantly this discussion doesn't look to have either a clear consensus or an obvious lack thereof such that, to me, an NAC seemed inappropriate. Thanks for re-opening. I was evaluating the subject while it was being closed and formed an opinion, but I don't want it to seem like I asked for it to be re-opened just so I could get my !vote in, so I'll abstain. It was a "weak" one anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In regards to the links provided by User:Cunard above, I'll reiterate the point I brought up on User:Valoem's talk page. There are four links presented: a now-deleted images on Commons, an article by Powerplay Rock and Metal magazine of the band, a link to Newsstand that verifies that said magazine is published physically, and a link to the band's Facebook page where they make an unverified claim ("We were the only band to be featured in the magazine EVER from Korea...that i know of, and its one of the top magazines for the genrer of metal in the world"). Since one isn't about the band at all (Newsstand) and the other isn't a suitable source for a WP:BLP (Facebook), that shrinks the usable amount of sources down to two. Searching the Korean portal Naver (both 'Fatal Fear' and '페이탈 피어') doesn't bring anything up on them; the latter search term brought up articles about Fear (1996 film) instead. WP:GNG nor WP:BAND guarantee an article on the subject: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included; Musicians or ensembles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria (boldfaced emphasis mine). Fatal Fear and FatalFear were created and largely maintained by at least one band member (User:Dreaded209 which is the name of vocalist, User:Cuwoo7 who was blocked as a sockpuppet, User:MetalModX, User:Korean metalhead, and User:KyloWrenCubeJedi, who have all been single-purpose accounts), which also points to a conflict of interest issue. This band has been active for 12 years and coverage is nearly non-existent, despite searches for sources in both English and Korean. All these factors combined suggest that this band does not meet notability requirements, not by a long shot. — ξ ^xplicit 01:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles from Metal Hammer and Powerplay Rock and Metal Magazine are by themselves enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles:
Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself
Cunard (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The supposed significant coverage in reliable independent sources is fleeting and trivial. This is just another one of uncounted tens of thousands of non-notable rock and metal bands worldwide, and trying to spin brief passing mentions into notability does not fly with me. That's my sincere evaluation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are the Metal Hammer article and this article in Power Play Magazine "fleeting and trivial"? I think neither are fleeting or trivial. They both provide substantial coverage of the subject, enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Cunard (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Fleeting" in this context means the lack of ongoing coverage, Cunard. Truly notable bands will be covered repeatedly in reliable sources as their careers develop. Most of the content of these two articles consists of quotations by band members which is not independent coverage needed to establish notability. What remains is standard promotional fluff extracted from the band's social media or press releases. There is no evidence of original reporting or truly significant coverage. That is what I mean by "trivial". I know significant coverage when I see it, and as I evaluate the matter, I do not see it here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is necessary to have ongoing coverage per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary ("Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.").
I think the sources still amount to significant coverage with the quotes removed. I disagree that "There is no evidence of original reporting or truly significant coverage." For example, in Power Play Magazine, author Ross Baker wrote:
Hailing from Busan, South Korea and featuring a Canadian on drums and a British-born vocalist of Polish and Jamaican descent, Fatalfear’s slamming melodic death metal has a truly international flavour. It’s one thing to come up as an underground act who were fortunate enough to land that big gig supporting a metal sensation but it is quite another to have achieved such a milestone in a country where the metal scene is virtually unknown other than to the artists which operate within it.
This is independent, third-party analysis of the band. The author calls its music "slamming melodic death metal" that has "a truly international flavour". Author Ross Baker marvels that the band started as an "underground act" that got lucky with a "big gig" and has achieved a "milestone" in Korea, a country where "the metal scene is virtually unknown". This is original analysis.
The article further discusses this "big gig":
Active since 2004, things really came together last year when singer Ed rejoined the fold as vocalist following the departure of frontman Wan-U (who now fronts hardcore band Gwamegi). With Campbell the band recorded an E.P. “Apocalyptic Crusade” and played their biggest gig to date supporting the mighty Arch Enemy in front of one and a half screaming metal fans in the South Korean capital Seoul.
...
2010 has seen the addition of Canadian-born drummer Kirk Martin to the fold as well as the band gaining a slot on the UK-based compilation “Microblast 2”, which was their first release on these shores.
It chronicles the band's history and comes across to me as "original reporting".
Likewise the Metal Hammer discusses the band's history.
Cunard (talk) 06:47, 17 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1960 (album)[edit]

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

Contested PROD for a non-notable EP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I procedurally removed the PROD as the article had previously been proposed for deletion [24], but this appears, as per nom, to be a non-notable EP. Google searches only reveal promotional material with no significant analysis, and there is no evidence that it significantly charted. Harrias ^talk 18:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its not an EP, its an album with 22 songs. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 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 keep. Please refer to this recent more elaborate closure of an article of the same character. Bishonen | talk 12:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Henrikh Mkhitaryan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Besides, he has only scored 16 goals. C. Ronaldo Aveiro (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C. Ronaldo Aveiro (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per This recent AfD for several lists. Lists of international goals where the individual in question is their nations all-time top scorer are notable. Fenix down (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, non-notable topic. Giant Snowman 18:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fenix. As the top scorer for his country, easily meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Fenix and Lugnuts , is the top scorer for his country where Football is the most popular sport.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge data should be either kept in independent article or merged with parent article. Either way the material should not be discarded. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and merge. No reason to have this list as its own article. Move the (yes notable) table of goals to the main page Henrikh Mkhitaryan! (Not even a link back to the main page at present.) (If this was not listed here I might have just bolded the page straight into the main page section it is linked from! Aoziwe (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each goal itself is not notable. No one would ever write an article about a goal? The goals make the person who scored them notable, so put the goals with the thing they are making notable. Ditto all of these lists. Aoziwe (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His country's top scorer of all time. Although WP:CRYSTAL may come against this, his age and ability compared to his compatriots mean that this record will be expanded and remain relevant in the future '''tAD''' (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Davit077 talk 11:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Don't really see the added value in keeping this in a separate article. The comparison to Zlatan Ibrahimovic falls a bit short, considering the vast difference in notability. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 09:01, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Hierarchy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any coverage of this in reliable secondary sources. Adam9007 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Online searches reveal some forum chatter, but there is no significant coverage of the topic at all. Harrias ^talk 18:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no signs of even a better encyclopedia-applicable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 14 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 as the consensus is currently clear (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kerkovich[edit]

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

"BLP" of a television character, written entirely as an in-universe biography and sourced only to her list of episodes on IMDb and a casting announcement blurb on The Futon Critic. Wikipedia does not keep an article about every character in every television series just because that character exists; we permit articles about television characters if they contain context and sourcing which attests to the character's real world notability, but not if they're written and sourced like in-universe profiles on fansites. Delete (or redirect to Happy Endings (TV series) if necessary.) Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Happy Endings (TV series). If there is a 'parent page', there is no reason to delete the article. Fails WP:NACTOR. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Happy Endings (TV series). There's a tiny sliver of salvageable material in the awful current text (the casting announcement), so there's an argument against delete-and-redirect, but I see no likelihood a guideline-compliant article will ever be written. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Happy Endings (TV series). Per WP:NOTPLOT, plot-only articles don't belong here, though this could be copied to a fan site on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 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. No prejudice to restarting as mentioned. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Student Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article (half of which is a directory listing the websites of various Pakistan Student Associations) does not, as far as I can tell, actually discuss one single Pakistan Student Association which should function as the mother of all others. I can find no evidence of such a national organization (I'm citing DGG, who declined the speedy), and throwing in the supposed founding date, 1947, doesn't help either. All the hits I found are for specific associations at specific colleges. In other words, either the PSA is not a notable organization, or there is no single PSA, only lots of PSAs all over the world. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though it seems plausible that there is a global organization. Curro2 (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose At present its a viable List of Pakistan Student Associations. Whether there actually is a PSAI will need some investigation--but if it does exist it wouldn't be as the mother of the individual ones, but rather as a general union of the prexisting ones in some manner. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restart as a new article as mentioned because the current article has no better convincingly notable signs. Notifying the only still active AfDers Ohconfucius and Edison. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced list. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:57, 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.

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Zaher[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet. Article can be recreated of course if subject meets requirements in future. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurika Singh[edit]

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

Non-notable personality Gaurav Pruthi ^talk 15:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Absolute rubbish. She's notable - a few google searches will prove to you otherwise. Here's some sources here, here, here, here, here, and here. Ayoopdog (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep winner of medals at an international event. 70.26.166.76 (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, appears to pass WP:SPORTCRIT Inter&anthro (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: per above. --Biplab Anand (Talk) 16:41, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Russian band. KDS4444^Talk 15:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely as I noticed the Russian Wiki has a detailed article so familiar attention is needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 10 Interwikis -> notable. No new arguments since second nomination. Arved (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the aid of Chrome's translation function, we do seem to have enough reliable sources on that Russian wiki article to meet WP:GNG, including claims by some refs that the band would meet WP:CREATIVE as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Home Security Store[edit]

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

Before I made the last edits, it was largely an advertisement for the company, which doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. Almost all of the citations were from the company's web sites and press releases (and those pages are no longer there anyway). About a year ago, the company changed hands, which made most of the content of the page no longer valid. I trimmed the page down to the essentials of the company,but I see little purpose for the page. Rockhead17 (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 15:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no signs of better company notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see some press releases. The only reliable source I can find is the article on cepro which reports the store's closure and the website's changeover. I'm not sure this would pass WP:CORP; it doesn't seem to pass GNG. BusterD (talk) 02:55, 15 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) Ya sh ! 00:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Dutch Boy Gym[edit]

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

Contested PROD but subject does not meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment potentially notable due to having one of the greatest padded records in boxing history. Having a 'world title fight' against a chap with a record of 0-7! I am shocked. Unless he was actually ranked in the Top 15 or better still 10 by one of the recognized organizations then he fails WP:NBOX. However, his padded record may have garnered him enough attention to pass WP:GNG. Further investigation is required before I go with a Delete !vote.--Donniediamond (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that he reminded me of the 'great' Ali Raymi, when I realized the pair are actually linked. I have a feeling this one will pass WP:GNG.--Donniediamond (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ring had him in their annual Top 10 in both 2000 and 2001 under the name Samson Toyota Thailand. Thai fighters often change their names with a change in sponsor or gym. As he is ranking in the Ring I've moved to Speedy Keep. --Donniediamond (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Donniediamond's finding of his Ring rankings. The name thing should be mentioned in the article. Mdtemp (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WBF title doesn't meet WP:NBOX, but his Ring magazine rankings do. Papaursa (talk) 00:28, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy sex[edit]

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

The project of non notable artist Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In spite of the article's claim that it is a "famous art project", the only reference I can find to it is on the artist's own web site. If there are any references to show that it is notable, I could not find them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no signs of better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Chertova[edit]

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

I tried speedy, but this was declined by another editor, for my surprise. A not notable artist, with no verifiable source and only self promotion and social network links. I searched info on Russian as well and didn't find anything Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as this clearly still needs work so draft & userfy if needed, until a better notable article is available. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the promotional tone of the article, the fact that the creator is an SPA and lack of reliable sources on this artist. Mduvekot (talk) 01:05, 14 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) 19:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esa'ala Cave[edit]

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

Requesting deletion per this discussion. To elaborate: I had created this article some time ago after reading about [the real cave] in an adventure magazine, here in Sri Lanka. It sounded very notable (not just because of the movie), so I went ahead and created a stub on it. Back then, I intended to add refs to the article after creating it, but had somehow forgotten. I now cannot find any verifiable sources to support the fact that this is/could be a real cave.

The old version (around the time it was created) is here. If real, the cave is supposed to be in the Esa'ala District of Papua New Guinea, at roughly this location.

I propose to delete this article as I cannot find any reliable source that states that this is in fact a real cave. Reh man 13:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support User:Rehman's proposal. From my knowledge of caves and caving accumulated over 50 years I was always sceptical about the reality of this cave (believe me, caves don't remain partially explored for very long!), and looked hard in the specialist literature for evidence of its existence, and asked various people who have been on caving expeditions out that way if they knew of it, without success. All the information on the web about this cave seems to have been extracted from the original Wikipedia article! --Langcliffe (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. For a long time I wanted to write about this cave in Russian Wikipedia. However, I could not find reliable sources. --Insider (talk) 06:29, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Nelson (athletics)[edit]

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

Missionary and former school athletics director with no indication of notability per WP:BIO. One reference is a WP:RS from the Houston Chronicle, but the other is a primary source from Cru, the parent organization of his current employer. I can find nothing else online about him in WP:Reliable sources. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as the current article still seems questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 14 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Memorials of Distinction[edit]

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

This record label does not appear to have sufficient notability for Wikipedia. There are very few likes on the linked Facebook page and few views on the YouTube page. A Google search does not bring up a wider knowledge of this record label. I had previously added the Proposed Deletion tag, but this was removed by an IP registered user. Delete Seaweed (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best as this is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are now no arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

King Vishal[edit]

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

I couldn't verify its notability. Can anyone find sources to prove he existed and was notable? Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 24 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 // 04:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- He is said to be referred to in two ancient works, one of which deals with semi-legendary (not necessarily historical) events. The question is what then two sources say about him. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve with familiar attention. Delete at best as my searches found nothing immediately better, restart if better available later. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added references to mentions in the Puranas and the Mahabharata in English. They are not extensive, but this may be a case where we want to retain and hope for more extensive references in local languages as those sources are central to much of Indian mythology. His name is transliterated in a number of ways, some of which I've added above and at the article. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Doesn't seem like a major character in the epics but there do seem to be enough stories around him to warrant a place here. Not sure if this won't be better as part of another article. Uanfala (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep There are a few english sources (especially mentioning Visala). That being said, the article does not provide a lot of information, so maybe this belongs in "draft-space" for now. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. we normally dokeep legendary figures and provide whatever information is available. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I've been convinced. Thanks to all who have contributed here. Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 16 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon O'Connell[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer with only a minor title. Does not meet WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NBOX. Fought for both the WBA and the WBC world titles. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rats I knew that - this was a mistake. Withdraw the nomination. It would help if the article was updated.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:40, 8 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) 19:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acodez[edit]

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

This doesn't seem like a notable company. The references here are all press releases or quote spamming without real significant coverage. I can't find evidence that the AVA Digital Award is actually notable and I'm not certain about Silicon India and all the other awards here. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article fails WP:Company. JackTracker (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet better satisfying the applicable notability, still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is not in accordance to WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH policies. Most of the references mentioned do not talk about the company in particular and can be considered as "Passing Mention" sources. Three of the sources for awards have their domain names starting with the word "enter." and hence from the same source. Sanket Edits Wiki (talk) 11:49, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mkdw ^talk 01:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabien_Duchene[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Publicity, self promotion, breach of the neutrality of point of view, do not meet the criteria for notability Beretta vexee (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link for finding sources was not correct. updated: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comment (from nominator) as currently questionable for the applicable notability, non neutrality of point of view, use of fake account for self promotion and reversion war Beretta vexee (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best perhaps as the current article is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 15 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 CactusWriter. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Triple 666[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No reliable third part sources with significant coverage available. Nikki♥311 09:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 09:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again a series of similar articles of questionable notability (some with clear copyright violations) by what appears to be the same author under different names. Too many to append here but this new editor along with User:Yu--gi-oh-gxx, User:Lovelucha, User:DragonballLover and IP:193.236.57.121 all appear to be sockpuppts of User:Martimc123 who was banned for abusing multiple accounts.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:35, 8 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 per WP:G5 -- creation by a blocked sock account. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

King Of Guts 2014 Tournament[edit]

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

Prod was added by Nikki311 as doesn't meet WP:GNG. Prod removed for unknown reasons. Only thing to be found is cagematch results. Bgwhite (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 09:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per my original prod. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 09:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seriously, the creator of this article is User:Martimc123 under another sock puppet account. This and all of his other articles should be speedied (again) under WP:G5. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 15:40, 8 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) 08:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tareq Burezq[edit]

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

Non notable dentist. I don't think being first Kuwaiti dentist to ever receive the American College of Sciences Fellowship of Dentistry is enough to make him notable Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable by wiki standards. Found no press coverage. Uhooep (talk) 06:28, 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. While there's assertions that the coverage of this story meets the notability guidelines, few editors have endorsed that position despite one editor making it continually. On the other hand, despite some of the delete votes being weak, there seems to be wide agreement that this is only routine coverage given the nature of the crime. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Clearly a tragic event but article evidently created due to status of alleged offender as an "illegal immigrant". PROD removed by creator with rationale of "the second time in a single week that I open the New York Times to find a story about a murder in Italy, I figure it's probably notable" - clearly confusing routine news coverage with lasting notability. Unfortunately, globally, many people are murdered each and every day. No evidence this stands out from any other crime AusLondonder (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that the coverage is "routine" is a falsehood. btw, the New York Times does not devote 2 stories even to murders that take place in New York, and Olsen was not a New Yorker. American and British papers do not give this kind of coverage to "routine" murders in Italy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A sad story but a routine murder does not become notable simply by attracting routine press attention, or because the victim is an American woman in Italy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an international news story, not a "routine story".E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local news story with international cable news overhype due to where the victim was from; otherwise a thin article overall with no hope of expansion. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "hype" - I would call it intense national and international coverage - is not because of "where the victim was from". Please, PLEASE, pleeze everybody at least run a search of some sort before making silly asertions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who follows the media as a hobby, it is overhype, and the 'intense' coverage is certainly almost never of the neutral observer type, but always bends to tabloid. I stand by my rationale. Nate • (chatter) 04:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far fails notability guidelines. Zero^talk 12:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL, Wikipedia:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia:CRIME. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to neutral Some aspects such as the unusual execution of crime with respect to event location and social consequences not fully assessed for an informed vote. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spirit Ethanol: I respect your opinion but would you mind telling me what was "unusual" about this crime and what were the "social consequences" that took place? Have I missed something? AusLondonder (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crime took place in Italy where homicide rate is extremely low and method of killing is rather strange. Further research required for a more informed vote. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

529 homicides in one year which equates to 1.4 homicides a day. There have been around 46 days this year. That means in Italy this year 64 homicides have already taken place. In the case, there should be 64 articles about murders in Italy. Let's be honest - the only reason this article was created is because suspect is an "illegal immigrant" and it suits the agenda of certain editors, the right-wing press and Faux News AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the suspect, Cheik Diaw, is under arrest and will be tried, and because the case has generated substantial international coverage [25], not to mention national coverage, [26], [27], [28] as per WP:RAPID it would be reasonable to keep this article for now and revisit in a few months to see how much attention the case has drawn.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Also coverage in the Italian national-circulation papers such as La Republica has been far from routine [29]. Presumably because crimes allegedly committed by migrants are among the most notable and controversial topics in Europe.E.M.Gregory (talk)

Note that firenze.repubblica.it is the florentine local-circulation edition of the Italian national-circulation newspaper La Repubblica (not La Republica); La Nazione is a florentine newpaper, too; and Il Giornale is a xenophobic newspaper and not a reliable source. Nykterinos (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't bring rash xenophobia into this discussion. This is pretty much a local murder case with the usual 'an American died' overamplification that cable news and the network morning show 7:30 murder blocks seem to have a fixation on (along with the inane connection to a Knox investigator). The La Republica coverage also seems to be routine, the same way many murder cases with only minor interest sometimes get a check-in by a national paper. Nate • (chatter) 04:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF, the comparison to the Murder of Meredith Kercher was not my own, it was made by The Daily Telegraph, which reads: "The arrest of an immigrant for the high-profile murder, which evoked comparisons with the killing of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007." here: [30].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20 articles in La Republica is not a "check by".E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with that, User:Mrschimpf. This is a classic case of Missing white woman syndrome, WP:GEOBIAS and xenophobic anti-immigrant WP:POVPUSHING. AusLondonder (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While your opinions are interesting, it is wide, deep, ongoing coverage that establishes notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please find more than Italian-language sources. As an English entity we require when possible that sources are English-language showing wide international coverage, not just Italian sources. Nate • (chatter) 18:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced to 2 separate article in the New York Times, to The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Beast. It was covered in Hurriyet [31], [Stern (magazine)|Stern]] tagged their article "In Depth" [32] it got the kind of worldwide coverage that marks a news event as notable, loook here: [33] and here: [34]. Coverage in Florida, Florence and Senegal is local - everything else is the kind of national and international coverage that passes WP:GNG, even before a trial has taken place.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "xenophobic anti-immigrant" and re: WP:POVPUSHING. I have no doubt that "xenophobic anti-immigrant" sentiment have a great deal to do with the massive coverage this murder has received. Nor do I doubt that teh enourmous amount of cobarage involves Missing white woman syndrome which WP defines as : "a phrase used by social scientists and media commentators to describe the extensive media coverage, especially in television, of missing person cases involving young, white, upper middle class women or girls.... the media's undue focus on upper-middle-class white women who disappear," albeit, this one was murdered, not missing. That is precisely my point. We weigh articles on crime according to the amount of coverage in RS that they generate. Arguing as editors above do that, it should be deleted because this "'intense' coverage" smacks of "rash xenophobia," and " xenophobic anti-immigrant WP:POVPUSHING" is,in fact, precisely the kind of WP:POVPUSHING that I have tried to avoid in wording the article. To whitewash Wikipedia by cleansing it of the reality of the massive media and political focus on crimes that prosecutors and the press suspect of being committed by migrants (as Nom has attempted the last few days to do here: Rafik Yousef, here: 2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing, Category:Terror attacks committed by paroled Islamic Terrorists, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 New Year's attack plots and elsewhere is WP:POVPUSHING and a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory - aren't you, as the creator of all those mentioned articles and categories, the one who is engaged in WP:POVPUSHING? AusLondonder (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep A notable event molding public opinion in Europe. Public opinion will decide the fate of 2.000.000 asylum seekers in Europe and of 3.500.000 in Turkey. Stefanomione (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Let's be sane and realistic here; a generic murder case in Florence is not going to decide that 6 million people have to go home to a terrible situation because one bad apple killed somebody. Please stop amplifying this nomination beyond the reality of what we're talking about. Nate • (chatter) 00:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment' - The choice will be between a permanent stay or going home after the war/s ... A week ago, Angela Merkel made a U-turn on this topic, monitoring closely the fickleness of public opinion ... That is why this article describes a notable, influential fact. Stefanomione (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this case has absolutely nothing to do with the refugee crisis. The alleged offender did not come from an affected nation or arrive during the timeframe. AusLondonder (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Technically correct, but~~ in terms of political mood and opinion, these things get conflated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check AusLondoner, where are you getting your facts? 'm seeing reputable newspapers state that Cheik Diaw arrived illegally a few months ago, which certainly makes him part of the migrant crises. Please bring sources or apologize to User:Stefanomione.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are sources on suspect's illegal arrival in Italy during the 2015 refugee crises: [35], [36], The Daily Telegraph says: "The arrest of an immigrant for the high-profile murder, which evoked comparisons with the killing of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007, is likely to fuel the debate in Europe over crime and immigration, particularly in the wake of the mass sexual assaults in Cologne and other cities on New Year’s Eve." [37] AusLondoner, please check facts before making assertions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY I have significantly expanded and sourced the article, entirely in English as my Italian is slow - and the editors weighing in here skew Anglophone.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still not a notable topic. DexDor^(talk) 21:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really fix the notability of the topic, though... Parsley Man (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DexDor^(talk) 21:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [38] is the CNN coverage, to date. Including today's article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note that coverage of this crime goes far beyond the kind of "routine" coverage described in WP:NOTNEWS, detailed under WP:EVENT section WP:ROUTINE, but often misinterpreted. Also remember to take WP:RAPID into account, and not rush to delete an event currently receiving coverage that is WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We get it, you don't want the article to be deleted. Please stop with the WP:POVPUSHING now. Parsley Man (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It fails WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Even in Italy, where xenophobic parties are quick to exploit such cases, it generated little controversy, much less than the Palagonia double homicide. WP:RAPID recommends waiting "for a few days" "to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge". After a month, the case has not "acted as a precedent or catalyst for something else" and has disappeared from national news coverage. Nykterinos (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it was in yesterday's international headlines. Added to article. Also, thank you for reminding me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palagonia double homicide, where some editors arguing for deletion on the same grounds they offer here, basically WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was in yesterday’s news because… the victim’s family protested against poor news coverage. Nice paradox. The fact that, unlike this case, the Palagonia homicide generated controversy in Italy doesn’t mean that it warrants an article on Wikipedia: actually, it fails WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, too. Ironically, none of these articles could ever be created on it.wiki without being deleted. Nykterinos (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, Nykterinos, please refrain from deleting valid sources and information; always bad form, but especially so during an active AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the sources is WP:SYNTH at best. None of the sources you cited claims what you make them claim. As the case lacks notability, you’re trying to invent a non-existent relation to the European migrant crisis or a non-existent “wide discussion” on it. Nykterinos (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More could be added to source what you consider SYNTH, but I have lengthened the section with quotes from the New York Times and The Telegraph (Note) that the section Nykterinos disputes was always supported by sources. Please familiarize yourself with topic and sourcing before making inaccurate assertions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is the 2nd time an editor arguing vehemently for deletion has argued for deletion by making false assertions, And that the rest of the editors argue on the basis of NOTNEWS. I understand the political vehemence. But the coverage of this crime has been enormous.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn the difference between "enormous" and "notable". Simply spamming us with links (which often repeat the same wire copy or the wording is reconfigured to meet the source's journalistic style, which is very obvious between the Guardian and Telegraph stories) does not make a story more enormous, along with generic 'scare quotes' where the writer quotes generalities like '(they) were a (good/bad) person'. And Senegal is far from the epicenter of the crisis, in western Africa. Nate • (chatter) 14:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I came here because there was a link from the Murder of Meredith Kercher. The cases are not comparable yet; this article appears to be a tragic but commonplace murder with run-of-the-mill detective work. MoMK had prosecution of American roommate and her boyfriend for killing British roommate in Italy, dubious evidence, conflicting experts, and substantial polarization of the community. So wait until this story shows WP:N. Glrx (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the coverage basically lasted the few hours/days after the murder and stopped in a week or less. Fails WP:EVENT, at least for now. Cavarrone 21:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep: The political fallout alone from this case is quite significant, especially given it's timing in relation to other ongoing events throughout Europe. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the article about political fallout (unless you count a newspaper opinion that it "is likely to fuel the debate" which is pretty weak). DexDor^(talk) 20:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every source in the article supports User:Ceannlann gorm's assertion of significant impact on the political conversation in Europe.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: - I haven't see much debate about it in the House of Commons. In fact, Hansard say it hasn't been mentioned even once. What about the European Parliament? What "significant impact on the political conversation in Europe" are you referring to? AusLondonder (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one that takes place in the court of public opinion, there has been massive press coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: - How do we credibly measure what is going on in the so-called "court of public opinion"? Also, what do you believe constitutues "massive press coverage"? A dog-whistling opinion article in an openly racist and borderline fascist tabloid newspaper? AusLondonder (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 529 homicides in one year in Italy which equates to 1.4 homicides a day. There have been around 46 days this year. That means in Italy this year 64 homicides have already taken place. In the case, there should be 64 articles about murders in Italy. Let's be honest - the only reason this article was created is because suspect is an "illegal immigrant" and it suits the agenda of certain editors, the right-wing press and Faux News AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm talking about coverage in papers like Irish Independent here:[39] CNN:[40], CBS: [41], The Guardian :[42].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the first example, the Irish Independent. Two mentions from the Press Association, one from Reuters. No evidence they appeared in print. AusLondonder (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's why papers subscribe to Reuters. Here is the Reuters coverage: [43]. But my point that these are not "facist tabloids". Although as regards notability, tabloid coverage does count. Even tabloids whose politics you dislike. Now, please put down you WP:BLUDGEON and let other editors take a look and do their own assessments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that you accuse other editors of WP:BLUDGEON, when half of the comments on this talk page are yours. The sources you continue citing only prove that international (and national) news coverage stopped a few days after the event: no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, no WP:LASTING effect. Despite what the Telegraph thought was "likely" one month ago, this case hasn't fueled any debate in Italy, let alone in Europe. Nykterinos (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nykterinos, Please cease to assert untruths. The murder has fueled debate and coverage in national dailies in Italy. Corriere della Sera, recent stories: Esplora il significato del termine: Firenze, l’omicidio Ashley: le foto della scena del crimine, 29 January, Ashley, lo sfogo della famiglia «Quante falsità su di lei», 10 February , Oltre la violenza per non dimenticare volti e storie, 14 February, search results [44]. Il Giornale search:[45], And the google translate oversio of the latest details of the investigation form La Republica, here: [46]. The case has had reliable, non-routine, in-depth coverage, and WP:RAPID exists for cases like this, in which national and international coverage is ongoing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, E.M.Gregory often has an astounding lack of self-awareness. AusLondonder (talk) 22:30, 15 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 as the consensus seems clear enough to close and not wait until a week comes to, any needs for moving the article's name can be acted with no needs for AfD (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DanTDM[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. The only independent sources are a Business Insider, a Guinness Book of Records entry and a Nick Kids awards nomination, none of which qualifies as significant coverage. Mosmof (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This guy has received substantial coverage from independent sources. For instance The Guardian. BBC, Birmingham Mail and The Big Issue. That should allow him to whizz past the threshold.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PewDiePie is valid so is DanTDM. They are both wildly successful youtube entertainers. CarsonOGin Feb 9 2016
Keep - Clearly meets the threshold for notability per the sources in the article per the sources Amberrock linked. However, I ask that Amberrock include those sources in the article if they have the time. Andise1 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to to Daniel Middleton. All of the above news sources refer to him by his real name. It should be structured like Joseph Garrett's article where DanTDM and The Diamond Minecart are his YouTube aliases. [47] [48] [49] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 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. Michig (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MysticGotJokes[edit]

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

Article lacks third-party reliable sources of any kind and has no claim to notability; fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Aoidh (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to nominate for the same reasons today if the creator still had not added sources. There are lots of ghits, as is typical for a YouTuber, but I'm not seeing significant coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as nothing is better convincing for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist is referenced in article which mentions in detail information about him, which definitely suggests he is notable.-Robert Hill-Forntongoover— Bobby-hillfornton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Are you referring to this? It's a questionable WordPress blog that has no obvious editorial oversight; hardly a reliable source. Articles on Wikipedia require multiple third-party reliable sources per WP:GNG, not a single, questionable source with no significant coverage whatsoever. As far as WP:BIO goes, the article doesn't come close to meeting that notability guideline. As the article's creator I understand not wanting to see the article deleted, but the article doesn't even come close to meeting any of the relevant notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sufficient sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rai Fiction. Michig (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clic & Cat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article has had only one source since its creation.. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Rai Fiction. This is a tough one. The reference currently in use here, from tvblog.it, may or may not be RS - I can't read Italian. But a Google translate of what seems to be that website's "About" page, taken along with the very use of the word "blog" in the domain name, suggests that probably, it is not. I also managed to stumble across this webpage [50], which again, I can't entirely discredit, due to language limitations. There appear to be two different websites in play here: Aulamanga and Satyrnet. Google translating the "About" page of Satyrnet suggests that the website is a portal to other websites, Aulamanga being one of them. It may very well be that these are RS, and hopefully someone fluent in Italian can make that determination at some point. But I wouldn't feel comfortable keeping Clic and Cat as a standalone article, solely on this basis. The only other potential reference of note that I could find is this "case study". [51] It actually contains a fairly detailed breakdown of some of the show's production information. No "inside stories", but some facts and figures that could easily be used to get a decent "Production" section off the ground. Here's the problem though - the report focuses on the show's use of a software program called Toonz, and the company behind Toonz appears to have published the report. So while this could mark a quality primary source for fleshing out any potential future article on the series, it can't confer notability.

Lots of digging around revealed that Cineteam, one of the production companies behind this series, is actually responsible for an Oscar-nominated short film from back in the 1970s. So it would be great if we could create a Cineteam article, and then mention this series on that page. And maybe some day, that will become possible. But I had no luck in finding any usable refs for the company. As for the other production company, Rai Fiction, I have no idea whether it actually meets WP:GNG either, but the article at least exists. If we need to have a deletion discussion about that article as well, we can, but let's take one step at a time.

It's worth noting that "Clic & Cat" is not actually "Clic and Cat", but rather "Clic and Kat". Whoever created this article got the spelling wrong - lol. I've done Google searches for both variations and have only found the above linked articles. It would be nice if someone familiar with Italian sources could evaluate TVblog and Satyrnet, as well as look for other sources that may be hiding away out there. --Jpcase (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've also discovered that there's a third production studio behind this series; one not mentioned in our article. It's called MatitAnimatA. The case study by Toonz, as well as the Aulamanga / Satyrnet article both mention it. MatitAnimatA's official website [52] has a "News" section, but when I try going there, it's entirely blank. So...maybe it's just aspirational, haha. Someone else should give it a go though, before we write it off entirely, as it could just be a glitch on my end. --Jpcase (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Scanning through the first few pages of Google search results for MatitAnimatA, the only article that appears to provide significant coverage is this [53], which seems to be an interview with one of the company's founders. Whether the interview is conducted by an RS or not, I have no idea. It took me awhile to even find an "About" section for the website, but this [54] appears to be what we want. If Google translate can be trusted, the website's content is contributed by "experts in their field", which if genuinely true, would mean that the interview more or less meets RS criteria. I also came across a few articles (like these [55] [56]), which appear to be from professional publications, but from what I can tell, they're essentially just event listings. Moving on to Google News, there are only three results altogether, but each of them is relevant to the topic. This one, which I think is from an university website, appears to be about an academic panel that someone from MatitAnimatA participated in [57]; this one appears to simply be about a workshop that the studio was involved with [58]; and this one appears to be about the studio's contributions to a psychiatric children's hospital. [59] It would be far beyond the scope of my abilities to create an article for MatitAnimatA, what with the language barrier and all, but if an Italian fluent editor ever takes an interest in this topic, then these refs might be of some use. Without further findings, notability is rather tenuous, but I personally wouldn't challenge the creation of an article for the company - especially if the interview is indeed an RS. --Jpcase (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rai Fiction as this is unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SwisterTwister: Just checking - Does the "News" section of MatitAnimatA's official website work for you? --Jpcase (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rai Fiction. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 15 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 Bgwhite, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuber-Tournament[edit]

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

Okinawa Pro-Wrestling was a splinter group that lasted only a few years. It went defunct in 2012. Minor tournament for a minor group. Prod (endorsed by another) was removed without explanation Bgwhite (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 09:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the original PROD. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okinawa Wrestling-Championship especially the comment about sock puppets. This article would have been attached to that AfD (very related same problems) but the AfD by that time had already been active for awhile.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a number of articles put up by the same user (Junoloara) who is most likely a new sock - all with the same issues not to mention his reposts of articles deleted in the above AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:50, 8 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 by Espresso Addict – WP:A7. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Skrilla[edit]

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

This seems to be a hoax or just desperate self-promotion. The claims in the article are dubious, sourced only to a couple of blogs. A search for "Big Skrilla" turns up nothing resembling a reliable source. - Mr X 01:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non-notable artist or entrepreneur without WP:RS (all blogs).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:17, 8 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] "Search for Public Schools - School Detail for Federal Way Public Academy". ed.gov. Retrieved 7 February 2016.

[2] "Age range for compulsory school attendance and special education services, and policies on year-round schools and kindergarten programs, by state: Selected years, 1997 through 2008". ed.gov. Retrieved 13 February 2016.

[1]

[2]