Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 January	21 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social Justice Warrior[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article's previous deletion discussion resulted in a merge with Social Justice. Consensus emerged that the content was to be deleted at page it was merged to. As Diego Moya disagreed with that, he restored it here, ignoring the previous consensus to merge. Article has not changed since restoring- merely an explanation of a neologism. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – yes the article needs cleanup and expansion but this is widely used enough and now has enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. sst ✈ 00:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to merge to Social Justice, then the content should stay at Social Justice; a local consensus there shouldn't override this discussion. However, given that there are doubts about the relevance of this term at that article, I'd prefer a stand-alone article for it, to avoid interfering with other topics. Opposition to including extended coverage of this topic somewhere at Wikipedia has been driven by ethical arguments contrary to giving voice to people who support the GamerGate fiasco, but those are not valid arguments against inclusion. The topic clearly meets the WP:GNG as shown by a sensible amount of reliable sources presented in previous discussions at Talk:Social Justice and Talk:GamerGate, and an article can be written about it that extends way beyond a dictionary definition. Diego (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Diego Moya: Almost certainly unintentional, but just FYI you removed SSTflyer's !vote and the delsorts. Restored now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't noticed the (edit conflict). Thanks for the cleanup. Diego (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the article's five sources, three are about Gamergate and the other two cite Urbandictionary. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Malik Shabazz: Why do either of those disqualify sources? WP:N is clear about it not needing to be the subject of the source, but regardless, this is in fact the subject of many sources (irrespective of whether they're currently cited). That includes reliable sources which refer to unreliable sources like Urban Dictionary. For example, in the Washington Post's article about the term ("Why ‘social justice warrior,’ a Gamergate insult, is now a dictionary entry"), it quotes directly from Urban Dictionary. I haven't determined for myself what the best course of action is with this, but there are definitely a lot of sources (some are gathered on the article talk page). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, Rhododendrites, but that's baloney. There are no more reliable sources on the "article"'s talk page, and frankly there are no reliable sources in the "article" either. This whole two-sentence piece of crap is Diego Moya's crusade to keep alive something that should have been deleted during its first AfD in November 2014. Enough already! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I presume the part of my comment you're calling "baloney" is just that which refers to the existence of sources and that there are some on the talk page, and that's fine. I don't actually remember what went into that list and probably shouldn't have mentioned it before checking. I just know that there are sources out there sufficient at least to make this not open-and-shut. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind, though -- and if I try to do so, I'll come equipped with links. The point was just to say that "three of the cited sources are about Gamergate and two cite Urban Dictionary" does not contain an argument for deletion other than a bolded !vote (because we don't just consider what's cited in the article, having a different primary topic doesn't disqualify a source, and referencing Urban Dictionary doesn't disqualify a source from being reliable for the purpose of supporting notability). If it's "enough already", that seems like an exigency for sound argumentation. I realize that a comment like this is kind of annoying, but I think one of the problems with many such discussions, is that participants' patience is already exhausted so they get bogged down by impassioned, poor arguments and head for sub-optimal outcomes. I'll leave it at that, though. Not actually looking to give you a hard time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 more sources. WaPo article dedicated to the term and Oxford dictionary includes it. --DHeyward (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NEO. Sourcing for this as a phrase/ neologism is simply not there yet. Perhaps because it does not need to be. "Social justice warrior" and "social justice internet warrior" do get used, but they are perfectly intelligible without parsing them as unique terms, which social justice undeniably is. What I mean is that a phrase like "Socialist Workers Party activist" or "Republican troll" are perfectly intelligible and are in regular use, but are not terms regarded as unique terms, because they do not need to be, neither do "Social justice warrior" or "social justice internet warrior". And despite some discussion of the term, in connection with in connectionGamersGate the sourcing is just not there to pass WP:NEO, "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept..." It could be a redirect to GamersGate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terms in the Oxford dictionary are not neologisms, practically by definition [1]. The WaPo and Oxford entry are specifically about the term which invalidates WP:NEO claims. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per Washington Post [2]. Notable, mainstream term. --DHeyward (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's about as well-sourced as Manspreading was when it passed AfD last April. [3] -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage beyond the sources already in the article: National Review "The Ferocious Religious Faith of the Campus Social-Justice Warrior", The Federalist "This Viral Video About Campus Social Justice Warriors Is Fantastic", The Crimson "The Social Justice Warrior", The American Conservative "The Tyranny of Social Justice Warriors", and Salon "5 reasons 2015 was the year of the social justice warrior (and why progressives should embrace the term)". These sources could be used to expand the article and give opposing views on its meaning and usage. The term is already in the Oxford Dictionary too. WP:NEO doesn't apply, as the term has been around for many years, and the coverage already in the article, as well as the new sources I've listed above, are about the term, rather than just using it in articles on other topics. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO. The coverage is mostly just people using the term or referencing it relative to larger controversies, combined with a handful of editorials; it lacks significant coverage as a term in its own right. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)\[reply]

Passes WP:NEO. Terms in the Oxford dictionary are not neologisms, practically by definition [4] The WaPo and Oxford entry are specifically about the term which invalidates WP:NEO claims. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I think you're misreading WP:NEO. To me, it requires a certain quality of sources (it says 'such as books and papers'); obviously an entry in an online dictionary is not sufficient, since the whole point of the guideline covered on that page is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. One editorial and one entry in an online dictionary are not sufficient for us to write an article around that could pass WP:V. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The WaPo article [5] is specifically about the term, not just using it. It points out its mainstream acceptance by referencing the Oxford dictionary. Two reputable sources discussing the term and its rise to common acceptance is exactly the opposite of WP:NEO. Further it satisfies WP:WORDISSUBJECT criteria by exploring etymology of the term in WaPo. The WaPo is a reliable source. The Oxford dictionary is a reliable source. --DHeyward (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The Oxford Dictionary is a tertiary source, and we should be aiming to use secondary sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the term has moved from secondary sources and now used in tertiary sources after extensive secondary source coverage. Its inclusion in a tertiary source invalidates WP:NEO as both WP and Oxford are tertiary sources. If Oxford is ahead of Wikipedia in coverage, we should catch up as we can summarize secondary sources much better than a dictionry. --DHeyward (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring entirely to your insistence that Oxford Dictionary was a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reliable secondary source (Washington Post)[6] discussing the term and how it's now in a reliable tertiary source (Oxford dictionary). I'm missing how you don't see Oxford dictionary as a reliable source when the Washington Post seemed fit to write about it as a reliable tertiary source. --DHeyward (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, nominator should be sanctioned for this POV pushing. As a heavy editor of the Gamergate controversy article, firmly on the 'anti-Gamergate' side, they surely get called a Social Justice Warrior on a regular basis. It's clearly a notable term. On the first two pages of Google: The Washington Post, The Harvard Crimson, Breitbart, Salon.com, National Review, New York Post, The Federalist, The Daily Caller. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, but only if it can be kept from becoming a polemical WP:QUOTEFARM and avoids the BLP issues of labeling specific individuals as such, and it could do with expansion. The reason I'm on the fence is because of WP:NEO. GAB^Hello! 22:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources, as those listed above. It is indeed a mainstream term at this point and even general media has given it attention. I wouldn't call it WP:NEO anymore as it is used in sources, especially with a dictionary entry linked above. Article quality is subpar (and quotes are a bit ridiculous, if only for AfD sakes), but there is content to expand. At worst, this should be merged, although I'm not sure social justice is the parent article (but if it's merged there then it should indeed be included, since that appears to be a point of contention). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the article needs to go into more depth. The sources are available in the Talk Page. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a term in wide usage at this point. I agree that a broader array of sources would be nice. Mracidglee (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm a little concerned that the coverage is usage and not examination, as it needs to be for a neologism; but there is in fact a lot of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more a case of "a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject". Reliable sources are definitively talking about the term (see [7] or [8], and all the others), which is what makes the difference between WP:NEO and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Diego (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, primarily serves as a neologism with relatively minimal use within media; any argument of its notability seems dependent on the prevalence of its usage as opposed to depth of coverage. Inclusion in the OED is arguably not enough to merit an article; additions in recent years have tended to increasingly reflect discourse on the Internet, so inclusion is to be expected, but I don't believe that alone is a sufficient argument for notability. If kept, advise discretionary sanctions as an extension of Gamergate case; article in its existence has been subject to persistent POV-pushing by most editors. 108.2.58.56 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Merge where?~~ (was changed to delete) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reason this article sucks is that there are so many POV pushers watching it who contest any changes they can and actively try to ensure that it continues to suck. I've never had such a frustrating experience trying to improve an article. This is ridiculous. Find a new source and add it, 10 minutes later somebody tags it as unreliable, then somebody else removes it. Add a new section, gets 2 flags added to it instantly then somebody else removes it. Why don't people put down their swords and try to help improve the article instead? We could probably write a pretty decent and neutral one. A lot better than what Urban Dictionary has, which is the top Google result right now. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- POV pushers? Have you looked in a mirror recently? Also, please read WP:No personal attacks -- as well as WP:Identifying reliable sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about you help me try to improve this article instead of trying to prevent me from improving it?Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is an article about a stupid internet term. You guys are treating it like the BLP of an important public figure. You don't need to contest every single edit that you think technically violates some random policy. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Revert to status quo, Delete, Merge -- This article was already merged, there has been no change in either article or sources since then. The article was restored out of process by someone who voted to Keep the article in the last AfD. This article is also under GamerGate sanctions, and per general sanctions and available sanctions, the 'editors' here that are primarily GG related accounts should be sanctioned. That should include SPI checks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, besides the out of process unmerging. This is obviously a neologism that has not changed since the last discussion. There is nothing significant to differentiate the term from the Social Justice article, besides the neologism. Except a content fork. Dave Dial (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"there has been no change in either article or sources since then" this is so clearly and obviously untrue it's difficult not to call it a blatant lie. there have been tons of sources added and a decent amount of content. it's in the process of being improved even further. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting, I think, that this content was only unmerged from Social Justice because editors there were trying to remove it. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no difference here. That is a discussion for the social justice Talk page. This was most definitely an out of process unmerge, and it should be reverted immediately. Dave Dial (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to word a different way: discussion at Talk:Social justice led to the content which came from the merge close at the previous AfD to be removed. It was at that point that the article was recreated. Maybe a bit quick, but it's hard to say either was wholly [in or] "out of process". This seems like it might be similar to the recently concluded (hopefully) Involuntary celibacy saga, where the 2nd nomination closed as merge to celibacy, but an RfC on that page was closed as consensus not to include. It's not exactly the same here, but again there was an AfD closed as merge, and discussion on the merge target page led to it being unmerged. Given the sequence of events, the recreation and return to AfD seem all but a foregone conclusion. Joe Decker, who closed the "Incel" RfC, articulated some thoughts about the relationship between AfD outcomes and article talk page consensus. It may be a tangent, but maybe he has some thoughts about this case. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This WaPo Article [9] is about the term and references it to Oxford deictionary that now includes the term [10]. Both are recent and post-merge. It's disingenuous to say there is nothing new when two prominent, reliable sources say differently. Your argument should take place with the respective editors of those publicationa, not wikipedia as we merely reflect what they have already noted. --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)--DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got my granddaughter for the weekend, so I won't be making many more comments on this page. But let me clear a couple things up. First, the difference between the last version of the article before the last AfD(merge) here, and the one that Diego Moya restore here is practically none, except for the restoration being a worse 'article'. 100% out of process unmerging, it was not worked on, there was no advice sought on if it was allowable. Secondly, the 'new' sources are from the same Gamergate episodes. Citing a dictionary when one of the delete rationals by Delete editors(and the closing admin) was Wikipedia is not a dictionary, is not something 'new'. Lastly, once again this article is related to Gamergate and GG sanctions should be enforced. There are several editors here claiming they are 'new', but were probably topic banned by ARBGG, not to mention the 1,000 edit 1 year conditions. That is all. Dave Dial (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're a veteran editor there should be no need to point out to you that deletion discussions are decided on the availability of reliable sources covering the topic, not their status of being included in the article. The article was never deleted; and the consensus to merge its content to Social Justice was clearly no longer upheld, given that the content had been removed repeatedly from that article.

As for the GG sanctions, most editors participating here are above the 1000 edits+1 year; though at least one editor who !voted Delete is an IP and therefore can't be checked whether they are above that limit. Diego (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Now that I notice, the administrative sanctions listed at Talk:Gamergate_controversy are set at 500 edits and 30 days, not 1000+1 year. Have there been a change to the limits that I'm not aware of, or are those the number you meant to say? I think all editors (except the IP, Ghost and Mracidglee which have about 200 edits each) comply with this limit. Diego (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but merge is the worst option. We should be very clear that when someone creates a term that is a neologism with a similar name it doesn't necessary get merged just because of tenuous assertions by the people trying to coin the phrase. The original outline was that this was a DICDEF / neologism, with an attempt to make it into a legitimate article by collating information from mixed sources. That was repeatedly reverted because of concerns of original research and synthesis. For some reason the argument to merge was considered strongest despite the fact that nothing about the "Social Justice Warrior" article actually had anything to do with Social Justice, and the weak content was no more than a fork of existing content at Gamergate (controversy), and most of the recently added sources (well, "additional reading") are arguments of assertion by Conservative feeds that there is a liberal conspiracy...which this AFD is now part of...none of which actually advance what the article actually is about - which is a cat-call. They are just evidence that the combination of "social" "justice" & "warrior" are tied to a culture war. Even the touted WaPo article above is little more than a re-tread of our own comments (it's interesting - but it doesn't add any weight other than to confirm it has a dictionary entry, which is again just a re-tread of the WP:NEO). Koncorde (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out, this is now attracting the attention of certain sources and being farmed on twitter. Koncorde (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People have pointed out how it doesn't really fit into Social Justice on its talk. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-Keep- I see the term enough in the news to justify its notability, plus South Park devoted a whole season to the term. I also believe that the term will gain new currency as the web becomes more ubiquitous in our daily lives.-RomeW (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the extensive media coverage more than justifies an article. Juno (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has media coverage; content doesn't belong in Social justice. APerson (talk!) 02:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; comments above indicate that the subject passes WP:GNG. ansh 666 11:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are now enough sources like this to include information on the phrase beyond dictionary material, and it seems unlikely that there exists another article that would be a better fit for the content. Certainly Social justice is not the place for it. However, WP:TROUTs to Diego Moya for going about this in exactly the wrong way. He unilaterally created an article contrary to the standing consensus, without discussion, and managed to create an even worse article than existed before the merge. This whole AfD could have likely been avoided with a simple discussion about what to do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly would have you proposed such discussion to take place, and who would have been involved in it? The people at Social Justice who wanted the content removed no matter what, and with an ongoing edit war? It seems to me that my WP:BOLD move to undo the blank and redirect (at a place which was no longer a merge, and therefore didn't correspond to the consensus achieved in the first discussion) has produced a good result. Given that I have not broken any rule, there even was no need to WP:IAR for this. Diego (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The logical place for the discussion would have been the page where the content was merged to. A simple discussion there about what you wanted to do would have avoided this more lengthy discussion, edit warring, and your problematic recreation of an article against the standing consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the term is in widespread use, there is extensive use of it in the media, and there is a dictionary entry. It is not just a 'cat call', it is in use by left and right. Salon published an article terming 2015 as the year of the social justice warrior and urged progressives to embrace the term. It is quite distinct from Social justice and should not be merged. Periander6 (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, If not kept, then merge but do not delete. The talk section of the article lists numerable citations on usage. As a word, it has entered widespread use in lexicon, and differs from the socioeconomic concept of 'social justice'. HOWEVER, it is not a field of study, but it is current widespread vocabulary. IF the article is appended to Social Justice, it should not substantially matter, as long as the new section explains its perjorative nature and how it is used to describe a substantial section of radical Social Justice promoters that are perceived to cause detriment to others in misguided efforts. Awolnetdiva (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's important to show the negative aspects of modern feminism, though it could be merged into Feminazi Hemi9 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noteworthy and well-documented, used in non-pejorative sense by some progressives. FChE (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a term used exclusively by fringe anti-feminist groups. Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme or Urban Dictionary or anything like that. And please, please, please, do not merge it with Social justice, as a philosophical topic older than Socrates does not need a section on a pejorative made up by Neo-Nazis/4chan within the last few years. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 23:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So many arguments to delete can be summarized as: "i dislike this term and the people who use it". This is an encyclopedia. Your point of view is not relevant nor a valid reason to delete. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, on the contrary, having a full article on the encyclopedia devoted to a term used exclusively by fringe anti-feminist groups gives undue weight to to a bizarre viewpoint that is held by virtually nobody. If there is any coverage of this term on the encyclopedia it should be in a article about anti-feminism, or, to be frank, Gamergate. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 18:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used in official Paper by Seth Barrett Tillman National University of Ireland, Maynooth (NUI Maynooth) - Faculty of Law ^[1] WhiteRabbit GER (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note, reading the arguments made over the last few days, persuade me that I was correct to iVote (delete) above, noting here that WP:NOTDIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you put this here? Do you want there to be more lines that don't say keep? there is no reason to say "I still agree with myself" CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is incredibly notable. The deletion discussion is simply an attempt to censor and delegitimize criticism of political correctness. It's worth noting that those voting to delete are all far-left politically. Look at Malik Shabazz, for instamce-he admires known terrorist Emma Goldman, as openly stated on his user page. Mean Mister Ketchup (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC) User has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism[reply]

NB: Mean Mister Ketchup has made no edits other than this one, some vandalism, and posting to Talk: Chelsea Manning. They appear to be here on this page to try and legitimate their own use of this term as a personal attack on me (see Talk). AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~False, but nice try. Maybe lose the victim mentality?Mean Mister Ketchup (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep seems like this term has worked its way into the modern parlance and has significant coverage and use in third party media. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is contentious, but this AFD is straightforward. The term has coverage in legitimate, mainstream sources, and should be a fairly easy call. The recommendations to delete above seem to have, at their core, a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. That's simply not enough to overcome the coverage in reliable sources. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 23:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Reynolds[edit]

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

Much as I would like to find any significant coverage about this artist, I can't (I found this but it's about a different artist). The Wikipedia article reads like a CV of projects, occasional name-dropping, cited to mentions or articles about someone else. Unfortunately I can't find one thing that helps her pass the notability threshold. Notability template has been on the article for 3 years without any significant action to address the issue. Sionk (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run off the mill artist, no significant independent coverage. sst ✈ 00:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage found either (though 1990s-era of early projects is noted). Award is non-notable. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 13:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming Tea Party[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ as per this: [11] news google search on "Screaming Tea Party" + band. A news google search for a band that has been defunct for several years shows only the tip of the iceberg (in this case a smallish iceberg) of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Trivial mentions does not make them notable. JMHamo (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy at best as none of this suggests solidly better satisfying. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show they pass the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 20 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 // 23:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

change to no opinion; instead of doing further searches, I defer to editors who follow the music scene.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quail hunting[edit]

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

Notability; Just a one liner article since May 2007. Article created by a blocked user. Ninney (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Weak Keep for now. There seems to be a quite a bit information on the subject that exists on the internet and elsewhere that could be used on the article.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not cleanup, and a quick Google search revealed a lot of significant coverage. sst ✈ 00:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is more than notable. If not expanded, the page should be redirected to upland hunting. There is certainly information on the subject out there. I may attempt to expand the page myself. Meatsgains (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a plethora of good sources to support this article. I found one such source and started an expansion of the article to show what can be done. Much work needs to be done to make this more than a stub, but it is now more than a couple of sentences and my initial efforts show the direction. The subject is notable whether or not the article expands further - my small additions show the possibilities of an already notable subject. And then there is this. Have at it, editors! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Maxwell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of football-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:07, 21 January 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) 08:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jin (Kim Seokjin; 김석진)[edit]

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

Singer of questionable notability, either delete or a redirect to the band might be for the best. Wgolf (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this seemed familiar! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jin (singer) Wgolf (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW-it has been changed to a redirect it looks like, so this should be closed then. Wgolf (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Prisencolin (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Racial transformation[edit]

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

possibly fails WP:GNG, seems redundant or a WP:POVFORK Prisencolin (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find the above nomination rationale to be incomprehensible. The article has five references, all of which look reliable on a cursory examination - and the nominator does not say what they regard the article as being redundant to or a WP:POVFORK of. The article does have problems, but I do not see that any of them would be improved by deletion. The references make it clear that the article title is certainly sometimes (though not always) used with the meaning given here, and while the article as it stands is clearly a slightly vague WP:DICDEF, the topic certainly looks encyclopedic - I see no reason why the article can not be suitably expanded, and I can not immediately find another article on the same, or even closely related, topic. Another problem certainly would not be improved by deletion: until an editor's apparently unilateral decision in February 2014, the article at this title was the one now at Racial transformation (individual), which itself was created by another editor copying and pasting the previous text from this article to the new one in June 2014. Thus simply deleting the article would effectively remove the earlier part of the latter's edit history. In fact, unless the nominator cares to clarify their reasoning, there would, I think there would be grounds for a speedy keep. PWilkinson (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing nom, but the article is probably redirected or at least effort given to expand the current content.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I note the argument for returning this to draft, this is addressed in some of the delete arguments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Robinson (Actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Not a single current reference helps notability, in fact, several go to show that he is not notable, since they are in-depth articles about a show he is in, and don't mention him. The other two shows with wiki articles, he has minor roles in. Searches did not turn up in-depth coverage on this particular person with this name. Article was declined through the AfC process for lack of notability, so editor decided to bypass AfC. Might also be a case of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY due to the username of the editor. Be more than willing to withdraw nomination if someone else comes up with in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that the article creator reverted the AfD with the comment, "The battle Line is drawn."Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please ask any other Nigerian Wikipedia Editor to provide in-depth coverage. The user who nominated this article is American and does not have Knowledge of notable references on the African Continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam3346 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Send back to draft space - not yet ready for article space, but there's maybe just a hint of coverage ([12] [13]) which might meet WP:GNG if there's more of it. The sources currently in use are mainly blogs and not acceptable. Interestingly I didn't find anything when I searched "sam robinson desperate housewives" and that is apparently a role he's known for. It doesn't look good. This would be an easy delete if it was a live article, but I'd like to be lenient with this one since it would still be in draft space being developed if the creator hadn't gone off the deep end and insisted on jumping the AfC process after being declined, instead of taking the project's advice. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I certainly don't have an issue with sending it back to draft space, other than the editor's behavior (several reverts of this AfD, edit warring over removal of the AfD template from the article, etc.), which doesn't give me hope that they will abide by the standard protocols. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page with no evidence of notability. I see no reason to move this to draft since no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. @article creator, I'm a Nigerian Wikipedian. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I was one of the AfC users and I still have found this questionable, delete for now at best as I see nothing or not enough to convince and compel keeping. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the eight cited sources, two are self-published blogs, two are primary source interviews with the subject, one is a passing mention in a list of credits, and three don't mention the subject at all. Searches of the usual Google types turned up nothing but more of the same. Without any independent, reliable, secondary source, the topic cannot meet any notability guideline. The author's client may become notable as his career progresses, but is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article at this time. Worldbruce (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just to expand on my rationale for sending it back to draft space: the creator jumped the gun by moving this to article space when it had already been declined twice (they removed the notices). Normally a declined AfC submission is allowed to stay in draft space so the creator can address the issues, unless there are red flags compelling speedy deletion, and that's not the case here. My thought is that if this were at MfD we would likely keep it as a draft, and I think that's how we ought to address it here and ignore the creator's tantrum. Maybe move it back and then move-protect it so this doesn't happen again. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail wp:NACTOR. Normally I'd suggest sending this back to draft space but with the author being a wp:SPA who's been blocked for disruptive editing it's almost certainly easier to start over. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpius Space Launch Company[edit]

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

Non-notable Space corporation, very limited references online. Quadraxis (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: It is my (admittedly cynical) opinion that Scorpius doesn't appear to be anywhere near creating or launching spacecraft, and hasn't made any publicly visible strides towards that. I know that isn't as material to the discussion at hand or Wikipedia's policies (i.e. if there was a strongly notable private spacecraft company that was failing to create spacecraft or work towards it, they would probably warrant an inclusion on Wikipedia!), hence why I didn't put it in the actual nomination. That said, there are quite a few references to Scorpius on articles like List of private spaceflight companies and related topics. If this article does end up getting deleted, then I think there's a good case to be made for excising many of those references too. --Quadraxis (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy later if needed as I found links at Books, News and Highbeam but perhaps not solid enough for a convincingly better article especially from its current state. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few small outfits like Scorpius that either quietly cease operations or de-scope/re-scope their missions without much if any public discussion. Quite a few of them were notable as they were up-and-coming and showed some likelihood of succeeding and therefore more material was expected for future article development. But many, if not most, fizzled out. As their notability hung in part on their promise and their promise hasn't visibly come to pass, I'd agree that there is just not enough reliable material to hang a hat on. aremisasling (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete After two relistings, it's time to close this, as no one's recommending keeping the article. If someone can come up with reliable sources, I'd consider reinstating the article. Deor (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oray Thaai Oray Kulam[edit]

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

This is another Rajeshbieee related article. The article has the same sourcing issues as the other films, in that the sourcing in the article is very poor and based on e-commerce sites, which aren't usable in any fashion. I'd originally PRODed it, but it was one of several bulk dePRODs with the rationale that it should go to AfD. This was created prior to Gantlet's block, so this can't be deleted via G5.

A search for sourcing using the India WP's search engine brings up little to nothing, as does a Google search. Foreign language sources may exist, but I'm unable to find those due to a language barrier. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) 20:19, 13 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 19:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Tokyogirl79's rationale. I too made a quick good faith effort to find sources in English, and even a cursory search on a regional search engine. I didn't find anything approaching something that would be considered an RS, which is unfortunately fairly typical of articles in this subject area. It might have marginally borderline notability, but with the amount of promotional puffery out there for Indian films (which are a dime a dozen), and the sometimes questionable reliability of informational outlets from India (which are often not independent, or subject to good editorial oversight)- it can be hard to tell. I'm not opposed to the article being recreated, if notability can be established with some reliable secondary sources. This may be a case of "not now". Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find sources in the English searches to show it passes notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 07:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Know-It-All Tour[edit]

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

Not notable theatre tour by an artist who has only released one album. As it stands the page fails the notability guideline of WP:CONCERT entirely Karst (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having released more than one album isn't notability criteria listed in the WP:CONCERT or WP:GNG notability guidelines. Several of her shows on the tour are already sold out and her (yes) one album (released at age 19) w/ multiple top singles is making chart history. 1 The tour begins the 15th of January. Article could use expansion and improved references per WP:ATD (not deletion). Hmlarson (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A concert tour does not get an automatic presumption of notability just because it exists. The notability standard for concert tours specifies that reliable source coverage "show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms," and that "sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Tours which cannot be sufficiently referenced in 3rd party sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article." In other words, they're not a topic for which you get to start an article as soon as the tour is announced as happening, and then wait for the WP:GNG to maybe show up down the line; they're a topic for which the sourcing and substance has to already be present in the article the moment you hit save the first time. This is parked on just two sources, one of which is her own website (a primary source which cannot confer notability on anything by itself) and the other is an unreliable blog — and the only substance here is a list of the tour venues. None of this suggests the need for a standalone article about the tour yet; while that might become appropriate in the future, as things stand today all that's needed now is one or two sentences about the tour in Alessia Cara's main BLP. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be reliably sourced as actually passing the standards that permit a standalone article about a concert tour as a separate topic from the artist herself. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (say) 20:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a first tour to support a debut album? It seems to be WP:TOOSOON to determine notability for this. PK T(alk) 15:43, 18 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 19:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tour's subject only has one Billboard chart at this point; right now this is the usual small-venue tour for artists at this level. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine[edit]

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

Non-notable acupuncturist school. All of 36 students, and no references -- other than mention in a trade magazine -- attesting to its notability at all. Calton | Talk 08:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (articulate) 20:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previous AFD explained that this is a masters degree-granting institution. We have strong policy/guideline/practice that all high schools and up are notable. (user:Orthodox2014, what do u think?) doncram 05:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, per WP:NSCHOOL, we have a strong guideline that requires schools to pass either WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The general tendency to keep college and university articles, as discussed at Wikipedia:College and university article advice § Notability, does not exempt any article from meeting this standard. Ibadibam (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

N.b.: Wikipedia:College and university article advice is an essay; see below. --do ncr am 06:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that what currently appears at wp:NSCHOOL is no longer what it was. (I haven't participated in AFD much for 6 months or more.) Too bad, if this is a permanent change. The standard previously avoided a zillion AFD discussions. This must have been a major RFC discussion. Too bad for Wikipedia if we now have to endure even more useless churning and destruction and disillusionment of good-faith contributors. What is the status, could a pointer to discussions be provided? If the standard has changed, then a wholesale treatment of articles should be done, rather than random one-by-one mostly unnoticed AFDs. --do ncr am 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: In fact there was no change of policy/practice, all that happened was that edits to the wp:ORG standard, including to the section wp:NSCHOOL, dropped the previous mention there of wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Per a new talk page discussion there, I have restored the link there. Anyhow, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does apply, and states that in practice we keep all high school and higher degree-granting institutions, as long as the existence of the school is verified. Here, there is no question on the existence. By long-standing practice, we KEEP the article. To change the policy/practice would require a much larger discussion involving an RFC notice, etc., and IMHO it would not change. --do ncr am 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a statement of a trend, part of an essay, and not a guideline or policy in itself. Look, I'm not trying to argue for deletion; I'm just trying to challenge you to demonstrate a substantial reason to keep this page, apart from we don't usually delete colleges. Ibadibam (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the discussion you refer to above as if it is to be relied upon (Wikipedia:College and university article advice) is just an essay, also. And I am not familiar with it at all, while I have seen wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES referred to countless times in AFDs, and always settling the issue. It is helpful to have a solid rule in practice. Like in real life the U.S. court system and others work well by relying about precedents. Rather than having to argue from scratch every issue every single time, we humans benefit from using precedents to settle what the interpretation of laws are in similar cases. Editor Ibadibam, I assume you are acting in good faith, doing your best to interpret the guidelines/policies that apply here, and finding your way to one essay rather than another one, but I am afraid you are taking a different stance than the position that is settled and works. I am not the best person to explain the original rationale and long history of decisions on notability of educational institutions, which got embodied into the text and usage of SCHOOLOUTCOMES; i did not involve myself in the discussions that produced that evolution. I think it is both good and bad that in Wikipedia any issue can be re-opened and argued again and again. But if you want to do that, the correct forum is not in an isolated AFD. The right forum would be the Talk page of a Notability guideline or policy, and probably with use of a formal RFC to attract wider attention. --do ncr am 06:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of this discussion has been posted at wp:Wikiproject Schools. And I am mentioning this at the talk page of wp:NSCHOOL. --do ncr am 07:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no coverage found in reliable sources. SCHOOLOUTCOMES cannot and should not be used to override blatant violations of GNG and ORG. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 00:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine participants: Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs), Omarcheeseboro (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), Jerry (talk · contribs), CRGreathouse (talk · contribs), and Just Chilling (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it gives a master's degree, accredited by the program for accreditation in that suhbject. therefore it is notable. The reason for adhering to this rule is that it avoids discussions like the present ones,by which every relatively minor college would be challenged. As there are several tens of thousands, that's at least 10,000 afds. Based on past experience, the decisions can be expected on the basis of prior experience to be essentially random, yielding no better results than if we simply kept them all, removing the fluff. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it awards accredited post-graduate degrees. Such institutions have long been considered notable. WP:N states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." If necessary, then as established through countless AFDs, this is one of the 'occasional exceptions'. BTW kudos to Cunard for their courtesy in pinging previous commentators. Just Chilling (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it meets notability guidelines (if only barely). - CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jawaani[edit]

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

This is another Rajeshbieee/Gantlet related article. I'd PRODed it as failing NFILM and it was dePRODed with the rationale that it should go to AfD. This was created prior to Gantlet's block, so it can't qualify for G5.

A search for sources brings up similarly titled works, including a similarly titled work produced by Behl named Jawani Diwani, however these do not appear to be related to the film in question. The director doesn't have an article, otherwise I'd have redirected it to his filmography. If anyone wants to create such an article that would establish notability, I have no problem with that. (The reason I didn't was because this is one of 914 articles created by the same person, almost all of which fail notability guidelines fairly spectacularly.)

Other than a few routine mentions in filmography listings, I can't really find anything for this movie. There may be foreign language sources, but I'm unable to find them. I think that the best source I found was a mention in this review for an unrelated film that starred Anupam Kher and Sharmila Tagore years later. There's really not much out there that I could find using WP India's search engine or Google. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GBooks does turn up a few of books that appear to describe this film as significant to the career of its ingenue Neelam, but unfortunately (and as usual) only snippets are visible. [14][15][16] --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the frustrating side of all of this - so much that isn't visible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notable songs and Neelam's debut film.. can be linked from her page. -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources to show that the songs from this movie are notable? Also, please be aware that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED so saying that this is someone's first film will not automatically give notability. I'm not against this being kept, but there needs to be sourcing that would establish notability. So far the snippets don't really give enough of a glimpse to really firmly assert notability. I'd come across the books, but I can't tell if the books actually discuss the film in-depth or if they're just given a routine mention in a filmography. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 16 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 19:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sakshi Sharma[edit]

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

Only references are from non-reliable sources. When looking her up, only thing I can find is her FaceBook profile. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) 20:18, 13 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 19:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Rosa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sadly no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that the original author posted a defense in the wrong place, on this talk page, with some credible-looking links. --Lockley (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) 20:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDear Wikocology, please state why there is no evidence of notability for this contemporary artist when he is being noted by different world renowned newspaper,magazines, museums, foundations, galleries and curators- in fact the leaders of the art industry - for the importance and outstanding position of his work. Please find a few samples of above mentioned outlets recognizing his work: 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/arts/international/galleries-try-to-find-their-niche.html?_r=0 2.http://www.welt.de/kultur/kunst-und-architektur/article136996297/Rosa-ist-gross-unerwachsen-und-transformierwillig.html 3.https://news.artnet.com/art-world/catch-up-with-rising-star-christian-rosa-17566 4.http://www.complex.com/style/2014/01/artists-to-watch-2014/christian-rosa 5.http://whitecube.com/artists/christian_rosa/ 6.https://www.nowness.com/story/christian-rosa 7.https://paddle8.com/editorial/8-things-to-know-about-painter-christian-rosa/

Further two publications of Christian Rosa were published so far over Snoeck Publishing in 2015: 1.http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Rosa-Love-Coco/dp/3864421233 2.http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Rosa-Loves-Gonna-Save/dp/3864420857/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452189427&sr=1-1

With best regards, P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panghea (talk • contribs) 20:04, 17 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 19:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the NYT link is barely enough to pass the GNG, but a bare pass outside the artist's home country is enough to imply that there's enough out there even if we don't have direct access. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This article's subject, depicting a country's future endeavors at an internationally planned event, is found to be notable and verifiable enough to meet the requirements of WP:CRYSTAL - and is therefore retained. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iran at the 2017 World Games[edit]

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

This article is about a country at the 2017 World Games. Pages like this shouldn't be created until nearer the time. Tom29739 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.". This is a series of verified articles with reliable sources which are present on 46 other articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) 20:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate and Delete mainspace with salt until 14 August 2017 Wikipedia is not a newspaper in which to announce upcoming events. I found no article on Iran at the World Games to which to redirect this title. The article identifies that the event ends 30 July 2017, so 14 August 2017 is about two weeks after the end of the event. Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 17 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 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a category for such articles:Category:Nations at the 2017 World Games . --Seyyed(t-c) 09:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maaya (film)[edit]

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

Created by an indefinitely blocked user; has no reliable sources. PROD template was removed. Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As we know, it is extremely difficult to find out on-line references for older Indian films, especially non-Hindi ones. I have tried to add couple of English references. The director is a major figure in Malayalam cinema, and there is likely to be reports/accounts of this film in Malayalam language (unfortunately, unlikely to be online). So, the film features significant involvement by more than one notable person (the director, the cinematographer Balu Mahendra, male lead actor Prem Nazir, female lead actor Sharadha) and is a major part of their career (one Other evidence of notability under WP:NF).--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) 20:16, 13 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 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anita M. Samuels[edit]

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

no evidence of notability: all available sources seem to either her own articles or blurbs accompanying them. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Send to draft~~ Weak delete This was just created today and I'd rather give the creator a bit more time to locate sources. I just went through four pages of search results with her byline in the NY Times, so I'm somewhat hopeful that sources can be found. If not, then it can be dealt with at AfC. LaMona (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) 20:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LaMona, I added a few references that I found, but it's tough to find information for journalists. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. I've searched high and low. I can find literally hundreds of articles by her, but none about her. One site says she won an award from "National Association of Black Journalists" but their site doesn't show it. I found her articles cited in court decisions. But nothing really about her. I'm afraid I have to change my vote! although I still feel that the problem may be not having the right sources. LaMona (talk) 17:50, 20 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 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I also considered draft and userfy but delete for now perhaps altogether until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlei Nemer[edit]

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

Non-notable volleyball player. I'm not sure if there are special guidelines for volleyball players, but I was not able to find any sources about this person. Natg 19 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (quip) 20:16, 13 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 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A brief search revealed no significant coverage. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG, and there does not appear to be anything specifically about niche qualifications for Volleyball players. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note after deletion Hello Natg 19, why didn't you notify me (the creator) that you wanted to delete one of my pages!?!? I now see it's deleted and so it's too late. This volleyball player is notable as he competed at the World Championships. I think for all sports this meets the notabiility guideliness. As I created in the last months about 4 thousand of such volleyball articles, a better discussion about it would have been good. It's likely I will create this article again in the near future. (CC: One and Jsharpminor) Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- One, Jsharpminor and Natg 19: I recreated the article so we can start the discussion again. Note that with a google search of "Ashlei Nemer" I found on the first few pages already several secondary sources.. Strange that you didn't see them. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a note to Deor that I recreated the page. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Benedictine University. No arguments for this article's retention have been made in over 21 days. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Center for values-driven leadership[edit]

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

This is a program/subdivision of Benedictine University. It does not appear to be notable in its own right and a merge proposal went nowhere. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Benedictine University. Source searches are not providing enough significant coverage to qualify a standalone article. Here's one source, but others are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [17], [18]). A merge would serve to improve the merge target article per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (confess) 20:15, 13 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 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not just because the !vote count is pretty even, but also because there seems to be fundamental disagreement (with plausible arguments on both sides) if the sources presented qualify as WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Schwartz[edit]

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

The article fails to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:BLP. Dr. Schwartz appears to be no more than a promoter of "natural" hormones, having transformed herself into a self-promoted business woman selling pseudoscience. Bioidentical hormones are a fringe medical treatment. I spent some time today cleaning up the article and removing the worst of the unreliable citations, but several still remain. At least they now have URLs for verification. My main issue is that there are only two articles which discuss her in-depth: the Vogue piece and the one in the Daily Mail. These are sources not known for their reliable reporting on medical topics but are known to be used by marketing firms for client promotion. The NY Times article is a book review, and is therefore promotional. The CBS story mentions the Dr. and her hormones, but also does not discuss her in-depth. There is one peer-reviewed journal article which mentions Dr. Schwartz explicitly as a promoter of pseudoscience, but it does not discuss her in any depth, rather just citing her website as a source of misinformation. The other sources are not-reliable, but are promotional and advert-like. In my opinion, this article is barely more than a puff piece, as Dr. Schwartz has done nothing more than make a business selling "natural" hormones to her patients and writing books about her fringe theories, which benefits from press junkets. Delta13C (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC) I forgot to mention that I do not think the Dr. passes notability per WP:AUTHOR either, as her works have not gained significant critical attention or been recognized outside of fringe and low-visibility venues. Delta13C (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - is very short on RSes, as you note - a BLP can't be allowed to stay with this sort of paucity of RSes - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, possibly redirect to the article on bioidentical hormones. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree it needs to be rewritten as the revision history definitely shows that the fringe topics have been suppressed and has been edited pretty promotionally in the past, but she's mentioned on T. S. Wiley, Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy and Humanix Books which mention some controversy that isn't included here for some reason. I think keeping and adding info on her pseudoscience/controversy would be more useful Burroughs'10 (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think she rises above the strict requirements for wp:BLP? Delta13C (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At present the article is insufficient to keep as a BLP. You would need to add the actual WP:RSes, not just hope they exist - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 10:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 10:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGEBLP. The best argument is that she is notable for her work in fringe medical treatments, but I'm not seeing evidence of this. jps (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't like woo or any non-scientific fringe nonsense, but I'd rather that people find neutral information about woo on places like Wikipedia than on any other source (like Oprah or Dr. Oz or something like that). This article mentions the (obvious) controversy right away--that's good! She passes GNG in mulitple sources. New York Times reviews aren't considered promotional. They can be used on Wiki to establish notability for an author's work. A quick search on EBSCO shows many hits for her, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Megalibrarygirl. It is not sufficient to cite a number of search results from EBSCO as a criterion to meet GNG. I looked at the link you provided to the results and they are nearly all self-authored articles that appear in the Daily Mail. Notability must be established from multiple independent sources that cover the person in-depth. I still do not see this for the hormone doctor. If you find sources that meet this threshold and that are not cited in the WP article, please make it known. Delta13C (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Delta13C. She passes GNG with what's in the article already. The EBSCO search was just to show there's other stuff out there. That was just EBSCO. You're right, most of the hits were authored by her, but not all. A Highbeam search for example shows other articles about her. I don't like what she's selling: I find this kind of pseudoscience repugnant. But like I stated earlier, it's better that people can find her on Wiki where the article will show the truth. She's notable, so her article should stand. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, she's published a lot, but this isn't an article about "Erika Sachwartz's puff pieces". This is an article about the person herself. It is a biography and as such we need sources about her -- not just things written by her in style sections of newspapers or on natural health blogs. jps (talk) 13:28, 21 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 19:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete marginal WP:BLP, all sources found is on her fringe theories and not about her themselves. Violates WP:GNG and BLP. 166.164.37.67 (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, likely a strong one - article does not satisfy WP:GNG, as reliable sources are few and far between to meet the in-depth and third-party coverage needed for WP:BLP. One or two sources that cover this doctor in marginal biographical detail but in great detail of her fringe practices do not do the job. The fact that she has authored numerous promotional articles about her own business enterprises further demonstrates that she is reaching with great challenge for notability in the public sector, and therefore, fails to do so given no one really seems to write anything about her. In this case it is important to stick with WP:FRINGEBLP in deciding the matter. 128.196.130.121 (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on some of the comments/arguments above - "The article fails to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:BLP." and "At present the article is insufficient to keep as a BLP You would need to add the actual WP:RSes, not just hope they exist" - an article in Wikipedia does not have to establish the notability of its subject, nor do actual WP:RSes have to be added, a subject can be notable and have a poorly written article, please see Article content does not determine notability. Also - "This is an article about the person herself. It is a biography and as such we need sources about her" - not necessarily, although WP:BASIC states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" which may appear to mean coverage about the subject, WP:AUTHOR states that a subject is notable if "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", so that if there are multiple reviews of her books, then that will suffice. Also regargding BLPs requiring indepth sources, WP:BASIC specifically states - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", so again no, there do not have to be indepth coverage of the subject (but then, there will need to be a lot more).Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Coolabahapple. Based on your detailed accounting, I still see that notability is not established, as none of the WP:BASIC criteria are met given the sources in existence. Delta13C (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thats cool Delta13C, just wanted to clarify things, may add something for the 'keeps' after some zzzzzs. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. (note, some of these cites are already in the article, apologies in advance for length of the following:)) Numerous reviews of her books, Publishers Weekly reviewed THE 30-DAY NATURAL HORMONE PLAN: Look and Feel Young Without Synthetic HRT - "The strength of Schwartz's program is that it's designed to be gradually introduced into one's lifestyle." and "These strategies will be helpful to menopausal women and others with hormonal imbalance who want to avoid any possible health risks in taking synthetic hormones.", [19], and THE TEEN WEIGHT-LOSS SOLUTION: The Safe and Effective Path to Health and Self-Confidence - "This is an eye-opening book for parents who want to help their teenage daughters explore natural methods of safely managing the weight gain, acne and hormonal changes common to female adolescence.", [20], The New York Times review [21] of The Hormone Solution is extremely short and just states whats in the book ie. "Dr. Schwartz contends that natural hormones, including progesterone and estrogen, seem to be the best substances to treat imbalances without creating side effects. She covers their use in PMS, mood swings, postpartum depression, hot flashes and loss of libido. And since hormone imbalance is not limited to menopausal women, she discusses hormones' value in women of all ages and in men.", Not all of the EBSCO results are self-authored articles, here are yet more book reviews - [22] - reviews of The Teen Weight-Loss Solution and [23] of The 30-Day Natural Hormone Plan appearing in the Library Journal, [24] - review of The Hormone Solution: appearing in Natural Health Magazine (presume the US. edition).

Daily Mirror interviewed Schwartz, which gives her background (needs verification), the way she treats and a discussion on Natural hormones [25], some of the journals in which Schwartz' books are cited/mentioned include - :in more.com, p140 - "as well as some by doctors (such as The Hormone Solution by Erika Schwartz, MD, .. claimed that customized compounded BHT would help women regain their libidos and youthful bodies.", [26], in Journal of General Internal Medicine article Bioidentical Hormones for Menopausal Hormone Therapy: Variation on a Theme of 2007 under Health Claims section- "Several physicians promote these hormones. Erica Schwartz, MD, author of The Hormone Solution and The 30-Day Natural Hormone Plan evaluates patients through telephone interviews and prescribes hormone treatment. Schwartz states on her web site, “‘Natural’ Bio Identical Hormones are exactly the same as the hormones your body made when you were younger except they don’t have the same adverse side effects commonly associated with ‘Synthetic’ Hormone Replacement Therapy.”", [[27],

Here is a Fox News piece [28], Doctors Challenge Suzanne Somers' Anti-Aging Advice - "She has gone too far,” says Erika Schwartz, MD, a New York doctor who spearheaded the letter-writing campaign", challenging some of Somers' claims. CBS mentions her here [29] in Menopause Therapy Sparks Controversy - "Dr. Erika Schwartz, author of four books about menopause, is an advocate for bioidenticals, prescribing them to others and herself." And finally WorldCat shows her books being held in numerous libraries eg. The 30-day natural hormone plan in OVER 300 libraries - [30], The teen weight-loss solution in around 300 libraries - [31], Natural energy : from tired to terrific in 10 days in around 220 libraries - [32], The hormone solution in over 150 libraries - [33]. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming she passes GNG because she is mentioned in the just the CBS, Fox, and Daily Mail stories, albeit with almost no biographical information and little attention paid to the validity of her claims? You are also claiming she passes WP:AUTHOR because of the numerous fringe medically oriented books for lay audiences that she has authored or co-authored for which there are but a small handful of reviews, albeit not appearing in a diversity of venues? I am not sure that library holdings count much to pass WP:AUTHOR. To pass these benchmarks, I'd expect her to have been covered many more times by a greater number of sources, academic and popular. I'd further expect her treatments to have been the subject of scientific investigation. The Journal of General Internal Medicine barely mentions her, except to say that her website is a source of misinformation. It makes sense to me to have Dr. Oz or Dr. Andrew Weil, even though they are fringe-y, pass GNG, but not a very low profile fringe doctor like Erika Schwartz. I think it is important to consider the possibility that it is too soon for Dr. Schwartz. Delta13C (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If she pushes pseudoscience then where do you think will people find out about other than here in a criticism section. Google results will be full of praise and admiration without any criticism. But here the criticism will be in plain view. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriate neutral sourced article on somewhat notable author. Library holdings are relevant, though not determinative-- though 300 holds for popular health isn't all that spectacular. . There are reviews, though not ideally full ones. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 18:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A biography of a person who is at best marginally notable, sourced primarily to non-reliable sources? How is this even a point of contention? our BLPs have higher thresholds than other articles for good reason. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Essentially per Megalibrarygirl. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Global Warning Melbourne[edit]

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

This is about one event in a 2002 WWE tour that may or may not have been a Pay-per-view broadcast, though it it would it appear that it was not.

Related deletion discussions, all closed as "delete":

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Global Warning Tour (Closed 17 December 2006)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Global Warming Tour (Closed 20 December 2006)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Global Warning Tour (2nd nomination) (closed 5 June 2007)

The article cites DVD releases of this one event. The notability of this event or its parent tour may have changed over the years, and so I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss it again.

That said, the references given in this article do not demonstrate how this event passes WP:GNG or any other number of policies and guidelines relating to events of this sort. I'm fine with anyone re-tagging this for speedy deletion again.

Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt "Global Warning" has been deleted before and was explicitly described by journalist Dave Meltzer as not having been a PPV.LM2000 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

here's that Meltzer source in case anybody needs it. There was a lengthy debate over this last May which ended when WWE Global Warning was deleted. The content is still available at Professional wrestling in Australia#WWE Global Warning, though I think it is WP:UNDUE to give it its own section there.LM2000 (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the speedy deletion consensus. This event page pops up on WP every couple of years and it's the same debate every time. Someone claims this event is important because it was a WWE pay-per-view event. Then when they can't provide reliable sources that prove that it was indeed a PPV event, the page gets deleted. Furthermore, as LM2000 mentioned above, Dave Meltzer(one of the most respected and reliable wrestling sources) has already confirmed that this event did not air on PPV anywhere in the world. And without it being a PPV event(or WWE Network event) there really is little use for an entire page on what is basically a house show that was taped. OldSkool01 (talk) 10:47, 19 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 19:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fairly obvious delete, deleted article recreated under a slightly different name. MPJ -US 13:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Coattail effect. And added a link to wikt:ride the coattails. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 12:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riding coattails[edit]

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

Dictionary definition of an idiom. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to wikt:ride the coattails. This is the most relevant Wiktionary entry I can find. sst ✈ 08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political metaphors, where it is listed, and change that link to point to Wiktionary, which others in the list do. It seems possible that a whole article could be built, but if that were the case, the article title would be something broader than "riding coattails". And there's nothing here beyond a WP:DICDEF. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just piped that link on "List of political metaphors" to point to coattail effect which is more relevant. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into coattail effect, which has more detail about the phenomenon. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 13 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 19:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into coattail effect and add links to wikt:ride the coattails at top of that page. Dkendr (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coattail effect and link to wikt:ride the coattails as suggested by Dkendr above.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Coattail effect. That article is the primary one for this subject, this one is only a dictionary definition which we don't do. As mentioned before, Coattail effect can receive a link to the Wiktionary page on the subject.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, noting the desire to retain the redirect and revert it to a prior version. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashuganj City, Bangladesh[edit]

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

Hoax. There is a real Ashuganj Upazila (sub-district), but there are no cities or towns in it. It does contain a smaller administrative unit of the same name, a union (the closest equivalent in the west might be a civil parish in Britain). The union in turn contains a village of the same name. There is a large Ashuganj power plant.

No Ashuganj City is listed in the 2011 census, or in Bangladesh's National Encyclopedia Banglapedia, or on the upazila's official government website (in Bengali). Searches of the usual Google types and of HighBeam return no reliable sources for such a city's existence.

The sole cited source confirms the existence of the power plant, but nothing else. The power plant is already adequately covered in the upazila article. Indeed, the "city" article is nearly all a copy of the upazila article.

The article was created by a now-blocked sock-master. Five of the eight non-bot edits have been by three sockpuppets. Their purpose in creating the article is unclear, but they have created other exaggerations in the same geographic area, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaanaziz for a recently unmasked example. Worldbruce (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:35, 13 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 19:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as unsourced content, probable hoax. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ashuganj can't be called a city but a town under Ashuganj Upazila of Brahmanbaria District. The town is a commercial and industrial zone of Chittagong Division and it has been urbanized significantly. There is a power plant, 2 fertilizer & chemical companies (Zia Fertilizer Company Ltd, Ashuganj Fertilizer & Chemical Company), railway station, luxury hotels called RJ Tower Hotel & Resort [34] [35], Ujan Bhati Hotel [36] etc. According to Banglapedia the area of the town is 8.99 sq km with a population of 30677. And i found there was an article [37] titled "Ashuganj" earlier which is redirected to this article. That article can be kept, deleting this. Happiest persoN (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the nomination I didn't discuss the question of the redirect for fear of confusing readers unfamiliar with the situation and becoming TLDR. My intention, if and when this deletion goes through, is to restore the redirect Ashuganj to a version prior to when it was turned into a redirect by the sockpuppets in February 2014. A broader discussion of how to characterize such places would be useful, and can be conducted elsewhere, but Ashuganj is not a city. Worldbruce (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true that it's not a city. I understood the purpose of nomination and my opinion is slightly different. So i posted my opinion as a "Comment" here. All i wanted to say is, Apart from metro cities, every district, sub district in Bangladesh has some urban areas which are called "Zila Shohor" (District Town) and "Upazila Shohor" (Sub-district Town) respectively. Like that "Ashuganj" is a sub-district town with industrial importance. Happiest persoN (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Happiest persoN (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems a hoax. If I'm proven wrong, go ahead and re-create it.--Oakshade (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FlyTech Dragonfly[edit]

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

This is a non-notable toy. It has received no coverage outside of the usual "new product!" blurbs - WP:GNG is not met. The article is basically promotional in purpose (if not quite, perhaps, in tone). The company is notable, but the specific product is not. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Selective Merge to WowWee, the toy's creator, which will enhance the merge target article.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to WowWee. Seven years or so have gone by since the first AfD discussion and this toy has not grown a mass off encyclopedic information. But it is still selling so full deletion seems a bit harsh. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:21, 13 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 19:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing a whole lot of sources to satisfy WP:GNG, including serious reviews in high-profile publications. PCMag (Feb 2007), Popular Mechanics (notes that it won a Popular Mechanics Editor's Choice Award at CES) (no date, but it's CES coverage so Jan 2007), Wired (Dec 2006), IGN (March 2007), Engadget did a series of articles on it (Reveal (Dec 2006), Hands-on (Dec 2006), Review (Feb 2007), Release (Feb 2007), Chopped in half (March 2007)), TechCrunch (Feb 2008), SlashGear (Feb 2007), Geek.com (July 2007), Gizmodo (March 2007)...and I don't feel like I've exhausted search results yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's two important questions about those sources. Are they just regurgitating the company's press release in a "hey, here's a cool new tech product!" fashion? And is there any WP:PERSISTENCE? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added month/years to the sources above. Obviously there's going to be a concentration around the time of it's release. As a product (as opposed to, say, an event), I think the presumption is that the coverage is going to be predominantly around its release -- that's why so many e.g. album articles frequently base notability just on reviews. Still, while concentrated in Feb/Mar of 2007, it's spread over a few other months too. All told, I'm quite comfortable saying it passes WP:GNG. As for regurgitating press release, you might say that the very earliest one or two is based on press release-driven excitement, but the reviews are at reputable sources of reviews. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:GNG upon a review of sources presented above. Struck my first !vote above. Also note that WP:PERSISTENCE applies to events, not to products. See also WP:NTEMP; notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by sources found by Rhododendrites. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit Remit[edit]

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

Financial services company which appears to fail the WP:GNG. There is a single reference with in depth coverage and that's an interview based piece with no sign of independent research on the part of the journalist, so not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could be a case of too soon. Only the Stuff article comes up and as you say, hardly a research piece. NealeFamily (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the original contributor, I've seen the strength of the company by way of its global reach - the authenticity of the company is hardly in question. I'm of the view that far too few New Zealand companies are represented on Wikipedia based on the fact that people don't take the time to curate pages or that the company pages don't score high with regards to independent research or digital PR exposure - which can quite often be bought publicity space anyway. How many financial institutions are there in New Zealand and how many of those are on Wikipedia? Not many.--S-birkman (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is not whether Orbit Remit deserves an article on wikipedia, nor whether more NZ companies should have articles on wikipedia, but whether there are enough independent sources with in depth coverage to make article viable. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the Stuff article to be independent and an in-depth research article on the company. Although the resource here from justice.govt.nz is not an in-depth research article, it surely adds to the list of independent sources, where the prominence of the company can be noted as the New Zealand government states them as the sole recommended provider for making payments from overseas.

This is also the case for workandincome.govt.nz as seen here, and as per New Zealand Inland Revenue Department's website, as quoted, "Customers living in Australia or the United Kingdom can easily make repayments using Orbit Remit, a money transfer system that lets people make repayments to Inland Revenue through internet banking at no charge. Borrowers living in other countries can make payments using a credit or debit card, telegraph transfer, foreign bank draft, personal foreign cheque, or by foreign postal order or money order.", there is no doubt that these federal government departments are as independent a source as you can get.

Another independent source where research was undertaken by the journalist to compare the top international money transfer companies based on the best rates (where in-depth research highlights rates, fees & comparison data) & return when sending money to the US can be seen here and although the article isn't solely focussed on one company, it does confirm that independent research was undertaken to reach their verdict that Orbit Remit be ranked in second place after WorldFirst and before CurrencyFair, PayPal and Western Union respectively.--S-birkman (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with the company at this stage is that it does not have coverage at a level that brings it up to the standard to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, from the comments above I am worried that you may be in breach of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Take a read of both of these sections as you should find them helpful. It is quite probable that over time the company may reach the appropriate level and that this article likely falls into the Wikipedia:Too soon category. My suggestion is in order to preserve it that you place a copy in your sandbox (see Wikipedia:Sandbox for an explanation of how to set it up. If you get stuck let me know and I can help). If the outcome of this debate is keep then you can delete it, otherwise if the outcome is delete at least your work is preserved and can be revisited as time goes on. NealeFamily (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds of WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG NealeFamily (talk) 23:08, 12 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 16:14, 13 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 19:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly no indication of notability, and clearly promotional. TRhe refws are almost entirely just listings. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 18:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't an advertising service, and this article reeks of being a promotional page. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 19:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Limestone (Adalber Stifter)[edit]

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

Book with no claim of notability. Delete or redirect to author. KDS4444^Talk 16:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the work is mentioned in the Encyclopedia of German Literature, as noted in a reference I have added.– Gilliam (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I translated the article directly from the German official page in Wikipedia. This is part of a translation course of the University of Freiburg that I am following. After I translated the article, an English native speaker professor reviewed it, and it was only published after that.

The article is about a novella contained in the most famous book by Adalbert Stifter, one of the greatest Austrian writer, and it is absolutely worth a place in wikipedia. I needed information about the story as I had to discuss about it in another course, but there were no articles on Wikipedia. Therefore I decided to translate it from the German. I hope it won't be delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.25.85 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 20 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 19:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Reviewd by kirkus - "Stifter is classicist in style and basically a moralist in content. ""Limestone,"" ""Tourmaline,"" and ""The Recluse"" are all enacted against an inward landscape of innocence lost or innocence regained, where lonely protagonists reach decisions about life akin to religious conversions, and where the eccentricities or the shadowy emblems of human character and situation are observed re Nature or fate or laws of life. This gives great dignity, a symbolic austerity, and even mystery to Stifter's creations. Yet the lasting impression is one of sentimentality, a dated dream world. Superbly translated." - [38], Publishers Weekly - "Four of Stifter's stories, richly evocative and brushed with mystery, are presented here in a wonderful new translation." - [39], PN Review (subscription required for more of the review)- "Quality is always important in translation, but more so with a writer like Stifter whose style is such an immediate reflection of thought. These versions are so good that you are never aware of the translator's presence." - [40], Choice Review of the ALA - "On the whole, a competent scholarly work." - [41], The Cambridge Quarterly - needs a subscription - [42]. EBSCO shows there are a couple more reviews - [43], [44]. Also, WorldCat has LImestone and Other Stories in around 200 libraries and Brigitta with Abdias, Limestone and the forest path in over 200 libraries. As the story appears in a number of collections a publication history section would probably be a helpful addition to the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after the research done by Coolabahapple, definitely worth keeping. In fact, it would be wonderful if Coolabahapple could add that stuff to the article, since they did all the heavy lifting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja Ammar[edit]

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

Subject doesn't seem to have had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Contains WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of info and is promotional in tone. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:07, 13 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 19:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It seems the problem has been solved and the page is no longer needed. I'll speedy Cross Country Route (South) and Cross Country Route (North) shortly as CSD G7 as David Biddulph is the author of those pages and is requesting deletion of them, albeit via prod. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Country Route diagram[edit]

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

Apparently created as a sort of workaround to try and avoid reaching the transclusion limit on Cross Country Route. However substituting it here at this "sub article" doesn't get it to show up properly either, so as a workaround it seems useless. The solution (IMO) is to delete this page and somehow figure out how to make Template:Cross Country Route RDT less massive. Jenks24 (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page did display, through to the version of 3 January, but subsequent modifications have corrupted the display. I'll be happy, of course, if some one sorts out the problem of Template:Cross Country Route RDT, but nobody with the relevant knowledge has got round to doing that yet. I will remind you that until I pulled this out into the separate page, the main article Cross Country Route wasn't being displayed correctly because a variety of templates (including {{reflist}}) weren't being correctly transcluded. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "subsequent modifications have corrupted the display" Well, yes, that's my point. What is the point of a workaround if it doesn't work? I'm not having a go at you – I can definitely understand why you've created this page and it was a reasonable idea – but if it's not working it seems pointless to keep in article space. As for solutions, does the template really need to be so detailed? (Honest question, I rarely edit train-related articles.) Would we really be losing much if we just reverted the template back to this version? Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  The point of an RDT is that it details the route of the line rather than of the services which may use it. For a person on a train, sure it doesn't matter at all that between Bristol Parkway and Cheltenham Spa is a junction, but if you want to know about the line itself, that's important.
  
  Think of it this way - if you're on a bus, you don't need to know what route it takes between A and B so long as it gets there; but if you're driving yourself, you need to be able to follow an actual route, and you can't use a map which doesn't include all the roads. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it actually worked then it would obviously be optimal. But surely it is better to have a simplified template that can actually be transcluded instead of one with more information that none of our readers can see. Jenks24 (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See below. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As another (possibly temporary) fix, I've now split the diagram into Cross Country Route (South) and Cross Country Route (North) to replace this page and get round the transclusion size problem. As in the previous version, any improvements would be welcomed. Of course, if everyone is happy with that split solution I would have no objection to the deletion of this page as proposed in this AFD. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think it misses the main problem, which is that in order for readers to view this they now have to click through two separate pages, rather than actually viewing it on the page it should be on. Fixing the template is the long-term solution. Jenks24 (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Gah! You're as bad as my wife. (‘If it doesn't work then throw it out’—instead of fixing it.) KEEP. Useddenim (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)~~(see below)[reply]
- I can't tell if you're serious. Even the article creator sees no need for this particular page anymore because even if we use the same workaround it has now been split into Cross Country Route (South) and Cross Country Route (North), making this page redundant. Jenks24 (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was made aware of this while working a Move Request for this target. This should be deleted as a unused, unlinked, non-functional template workaround created in the main article space. It is not transcluded into any article, nor is it linked from a mainspace article. Since it is not working as designed, and is unused --- moving it is a moot point. It should be deleted, technical problems worked out, and then recreated in the template or other non-article space.Tiggerjay (talk) 17:01, 14 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 19:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. However, the split diagrams are not part of this discussion and as such should not be deleted. There is need of certain large RDTs to be housed in article space for technical reasons - usually size limits. Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as {{Cross Country Route RDT}} has been converted to {{Routemap}} and now displays correctly. (In fact, Cross Country Route (North) and Cross Country Route (South) can now also be deleted for the same reason.) Useddenim (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devaraj Mohan[edit]

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

The creating user was recently blocked for sockpuppetry. Only reference I can find about them is a FaceBook post about their death. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any reliable source that makes the person notable. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:41, 6 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 16:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see there are references cited in the article (unfortunately I was unable to access the two book references mentioned). I added another print reference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps only if it can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 13 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 19:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tatomir, Voivode of Ung and Bereg[edit]

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

WP:BIO: No reliable source, independent of the subject, which proves that he was notable enough to receive a separate article has been provided for more than a year. A general study of a region does not prove the notability of a person once living in that region, especially if it was written by a descendant of the same person. Borsoka (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject's title as given above is by itself a claim to pretty much automatic notability under WP:NPOL (specifically, subnational office). So far as I can determine, Ung and Bereg counties between them traditionally included what is today most of Zakarpattia Oblast in Ukraine, together with smaller but still significant areas of north-eastern Hungary and eastern Slovakia (and perhaps a small bit of northern Romania). Moreover, the period in which the subject is said to have ruled this area was a distinctly disturbed period of Hungarian history, in which nobles in areas like this could exercise effective independence for decades. Under the circumstances, even a passing mention in a general study of the region would be enough to establish notability - provided it is reliable enough for verifiability and makes it clear that the title was more than nominal. However, even though I can scarcely read Romanian, I can still be almost certain that the sources we are currently given do not do this. What we have is a history of a neighbouring area which, so far as I can tell, simply does not support the information it is meant to confirm (it mentions voivodes of the two counties and also one or more people named Tatomir, but apparently at rather later dates and not closely enough together to associate Tatomir with a voivodeship of either county); and something that does contain the relevant information but looks like either a fairly general e-zine or a group blog. And the few other sources I can find in a quick search for this area in the early 14th century suggest that, for at least significant parts of the period, the area was actually controlled by Amade Aba (or possibly in part by Nicholas Pok), and don't seem to mention Tatomir at all. I could easily be missing something, but if I am not, I can't rule out a hoax. PWilkinson (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PWilkinson, thank you for your above comment. I do not know whether Tatomir was an actual person, but his (alleged?) title does not suggest that he was a notable man. You are right that a voivode could be a powerful lord (such as the Voivode of Transylvania) in the Kingdom of Hungary, but a voivode could also be the leader of a small group of peoples: for instance, the leaders of the Vlach (or Romanian) communities in the domains of the bishops of Várad were titled voivodes ([45]). What is clear, a voivode was never the head of a county (such as Bereg and Ung), because counties were headed by royal officials known as ispáns (or counts). (I refer to the reliable sources cited in the articles ispán and Kingdom of Hungary (1000-1301).) Borsoka (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on notability. Can't actually read the source materiel, but the google translation of parts of it indicate some sort of inherited title. I make no judgements on verification- I think I'd need to read other languages for that.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bahb the Illuminated, thank you for your message. Just one remark: even if he was actually a voivode, he did not inherit that title, because voivodeship in the case of the Vlach communities in the Kingdom of Hungary was an office whose holder was either elected or nominated (I refer to the above cited online work). Borsoka (talk) 06:21, 12 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 16:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PWilkinson, does this passing mention help in establishing notability? Or maybe this one? Razvan Socol (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as the second reference proves, he was not the voivode of Bereg and Ung, but the voivode of the Vlachs in Bereg and Ung. However, none of the above sources contain more information of him. Can an article be developed based on this piece of information, if scholars have obviously not attempted to study his life? Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy until a better article is available as this is potentially acceptable but perhaps not solidly yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he was a simple superior ("mayor") of a local community. I think the article Ung and Bereg also contains several misinterpreations. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:49, 14 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 19:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To add to my earlier comment in the light of later discussion - I am willing to accept that not every person called a voivode could be regard as equivalent to the ruler of Transylvania but, by comparison with medieval western Europe, I would tend to believe an ispán to be notable (though possibly not automatically so), and would tend to regard noble ranks just below it as asserting a tentative (but definotely not automatic) claim to notability. However, while the further references provided by User:Rsocol are enough to dispel my fear of a hoax, all they seem to confirm is that there probably was an individual named Tatomir, contemporary with Charles I of Hungary, who seems to have been known as voivode of Bereg (but, in this context, this might have been a rank lower than ispán) and from whom later local nobles of Vlach origin claimed descent. Whatever voivode meant in this context, we may have a problem of WP:BIAS in that there is a significant chance that the title meant enough that a noble in 14th century in France or England with equivalent power and influence would be effectively automatically notable - but nothing I have seen so far comes close to affirming that. PWilkinson (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: PWilkinson, thank you for your comment. I would just like to repeat that he was not voivode of Bereg, but voivode of the Vlachs in Bereg. Furthermore nobility in France and in the Kingdom of Hungary can hardly be compared: in the Kingdom of Hungary, at least 5% of the inhabitants were noblemen or noblewomen. I think we cannot say that every 50th persons in the history of the Kingdom of Hungary were notable if we cannot refer to a work, independent of him or her, which substantiates this claim. Borsoka (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xplorer²[edit]

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

I can't see how this piece of software meets WP:GNG. Most search results are download or aggregator websites. sst✈ 17:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 17:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just found something from Lifehacker. I'm going to keep looking. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find, but a single Lifehacker review is not enough for establishing notability. sst✈ 05:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Second Lifehacker review: [46], and one from BetaNews, which I am taking to RSN. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - RSN came up empty. We source it in a few articles, but maybe it's not good enough. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some links at News and browsers but perhaps nothing for a better article. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment xplorer2 is a popular windows file manager actively developed since 2004. It is easy in the top 5 windows file managers checking Alexa rank or whatever else you might want to consider. If you remove its article you must remove 95% of software articles on Wikipedia. umeca74 (t/c) 12:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Umeka74: Are there any big, popular sites that post about it? I mean in terms of most of this. Anything this big will probably do. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All this discussion started because someone who hasn't heard of xplorer2 before and cannot do a google search for "xplorer2 review" to answer its own question, and considers lifehacker to be inferior, wants the Wikipedia article removed. I believe there were enough countering voices and croud democracy should now win :) umeca74 (t/c) 05:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This my favorite file explorer. It is powerful, important and certainly notable. OlavN (talk) 08:28, 12 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 16:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has multiple reviews from Lifehacker and one from CNET here, passing GNG. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:51, 18 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 19:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiqul Alam (politician)[edit]

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

Mayor of a small area. Couldn't establish that he meets WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Worldbruce, Ueutyi,CAPTAIN RAJU. Boleyn (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Khagrachhari Upazila, of which the town is presumably a part, only has a population of 61,000, which isn't enough for inherent notability for a mayor even if they all lived in the town. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Curro2 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify your thinking on this? If your reaction was based on a quick Google search, be aware that there are other Rafiqul Alams, even other ones who are politicians. The subject of this article is an independent who won re-election as town mayor. The cited coverage consists of his name in a list of 323 mayors elected across Bangladesh. Beyond that I've found occasional passing mentions of the "mayor was in attendance" variety. If you've found something substantive, I'm sure we'd all like to use it to improve the article. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot rely on English language searches for Bengali-related articles. The English speaking world's coverage of Bangladesh is limited. It's pretty much BDLive, Prothom Alo, and the Tribune. You have to evaluate based on Bengali sources, many of which are not online even when there is coverage. There is less of a problem with Urdu, Pashto, and Hindu sources but we have the same problem there. Curro2 (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curro2, you wrote that he is 'clearly notable'. How is he clearly notable? What parts of WP:NOTABILITY guidelines does he meet? It's of course true that the best sources won't be in English, or necessarily on the Internet, but that doesn't answer whether this guy is notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two largest parties, Awami and BNP, which dominate politics in Bangladesh, worked together to try to unseat him and failed. He basically wants Chittagong Hills to break off and run itself. Also they are still suing him (can't find a source for this). Curro2 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if people search they can find more on him but at this point I don't care enough to go look. Bangladesh is outside of my general area of interest. Paging Bangladeshi WikiProject members... Delete, don't delete, either way is fine. Curro2 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging Curro2 to above comment. Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 6 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 16:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seemingly unlikely to better satisfy the politicians notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 14 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 19:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice should evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications come forward at a later date. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Khagrachhari Sadar Upazila. (Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the town he's a mayor of, but this is the next largest political unit. It would be reasonable for it to mention the town and the name of its mayor.) Further to Necrothesp's observation, the mayor received 10,000 votes in a town with a population under 40,000. This does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN #1.

To the original routine coverage, consisting of his name in a list of 323 mayors elected across Bangladesh, Curro added one more substantive article and a couple passing mentions (such as a sentence when his nomination paperwork was filed). For those not fluent in Bengali, the gist of the longer piece it is that the mayor bought a plot of land, and there was a dispute about whether a shanty was on the land he bought or on adjacent land belonging to a Buddhist monastery. The footnotes for [[WP:POLITICIAN] #2 advise that, "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles." Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and ProQuest failed to find coverage that, taken together, would satisfy this point.

The mayor may become notable in the future if more is written about him or if he enters national politics, but at this time he does not merit a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Black[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I was actually PRODing this with the follwing: "Nothing to suggest satisfying WP:CREATIVE as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions at News and browsers." until I noticed the 1st AfD so here we are. My searches found nothing better and the listed sources at the 1st AfD are not enough to suggest this satisfies the notability guidelines. Notifying past AfDers Joshua Scott and Trackinfo. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, the subject does not meet BLP or GNG. Delta13C (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've been down this road before. This name googles, she is regarded as a celebrity in Singapore. This source specifically identifies her as such. She has an active series of hosting duties including the Miss Earth 2013 pageant. The last time this was up for AfD another editor followed up to remove a bunch of sources from the article. That's a pretty disingenuous tactic to try to get an article deleted. Under another AfD attack again, its easy to add more sources, I just stopped because ten is more than enough. I don't see what attracts people to pick on this article, but there is no good cause to delete. Trackinfo (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she appears to meet WP:BASIC. Some of the sources provided are in-depth. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:38, 10 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 16:17, 13 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 19:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG, no question. I added some other sources, as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leama & Moor[edit]

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

My searches found no better sourcing to suggest this better notable and improvable and could at best be redirected to Andy Moor after deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Notifying author Wickethewok and tagger Dialectric. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is their homepage: http://www.leamaandmoor.com/ and there is more text on their "About" page of the website which could be used in the article. 134.176.171.89 (talk) 12:29, 6 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 16:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andy Moor; insufficient coverage to justify a standalone article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:49, 13 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 19:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs Much More References. Also, it has Redirect to the Artist. So that Page Should Suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalabJessika (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band.The Cross Bearer (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:NMUSIC, and nothing in searches turned up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Bollyworld TV[edit]

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

5 month old TV channel, doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Functioning network with a programming schedule from a known Indian media power, and network age is usually not up for consideration in an AfD. Nate • (chatter) 10:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is? Just being functional? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Nate, and I have also added some more content with reliable sources. ЖunalForYou ^☎️^📝 05:38, 13 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 16:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "added content" is making the article seem to pass WP:GNG. all three references just talk about the launch of the channel. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:26, 15 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 18:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 only reliable secondary source significantly covering Elfath that has been presented here is this one from the Austin American-Statesman (the other source presented by Nfitz, from almarssadpro is a primary source, as it is an interview, and per policy cannot be used to establish notability). That one source alone does not pass the requirements of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Therefore, the article's subject is found to not be currently notable. (Note: This close does not hold prejudice against the article being re-created if other reliable secondary sources cover the subject in the future.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Elfath[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hasn't played or managed in a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article clearly has had significant coverage, see here, here and here. Subject is also an obvious professional in a professional domestic league, see see here. As the subject of this article has also refereed over 4 leagues (all professional), as well as substantial coverage, this article should not be deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm withholding my !vote for the time being. Current consensus is that referees are not automatically notable, so the professional status of a referee is moot and WP:GNG must be met. I must disregard the second source provided by Inter&anthro because it is a forum and not a reliable source. However, I do agree that this referee is somewhat controversial, as shown by the first and third sources provided. I'm not yet convinced that GNG has been met, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more out there. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. The three sources that Inter&anthro provides are an news piece by the LA Galaxy criticising him, a forum, and a non-RS. Not enough for GNG. Giant Snowman 18:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is the consensus about this? I thought referees who do officiate in fully-pro leagues do count as notable? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now perhaps if there's nothing for a better notable article and I would've also accepted redirecting if needed. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 12 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 16:15, 13 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 18:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have found nothing to establish independent notability of this subject. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the more routine references above, Elfath has also received in-depth international coverage in features such as [47], and [48]. The second is in Arabic, and the title is translated at "Exclusive Interview: Morrocan Referee Ismail Elfath opens his heart to almarssadpro". Nfitz (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG JMHamo (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If there cannot be a clear consensus here, I would immensely appreciate if this was relisted thrice. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Richardson (presenter)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and television presenter, which as written does little more than assert that he exists — and cites not one shred of reliable source coverage to verify the fact. Anything listed in his "filmography" would be enough to get him into Wikipedia if it were sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, which is why I'm not just speedying it A7, but none of it is significant enough to give him an inclusion freebie in the absence of adequate sourcing. And I just ran a Google News search, which didn't turn up any better sourcing, Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've frankly PRODed as this is applicable and nothing suggests better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 13 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 18:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Couldn't locate any video game oriented reliable sources, despite that apparently being his focus. -- ferret (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team Sure Win[edit]

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

I have added citations from news articles, and media from news related agencies.--HungKami (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and appears to be a case of WP:ADMASK. Cubbie15fan (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team Sure Win is a brand or trade mark owned by a company. The wiki article was about the brand, which companies are operating it, in this case 2 companies from 2 countries, how it evolved, and notable entities that used or uses the brand. There are news articles, youtube videos, and other media that support some of the claims --HungKami (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment:I dispute the notability of the sportswear brand. Based from content of this article, Team Sure Win has only provided uniforms to teams playing "community leagues". They haven't provided uniforms for national or at least regional-wide leagues, the closest thing they have done is to provide the uniform of a Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) team. However that PBA team is an All-Star or Selection team and not a full-fledged team playing in that professional national league. Sure they had customers from multi-national companies, most probably uniforms for their corporate leagues for team building for their employees. Also the article has issues regarding its tone and structure. It looks like an advertisement for the brand. For starters, The mention of the tagline of the brand in the lead is already a red flag.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a criteria for how notable a sportswear brand is before it earns the right to have a page in Wikipedia? The brand has gained exposure on national Philippine television in major news programs, as well as a telemovie in Singapore. Would a national inter-government agency league be considered prominent enough? --HungKami (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the brand's tagline is not as well known and as short as Nike's "Just do it", but should it catch up to global popularity before it is allowed on Wikipedia?--HungKami (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately yes. Nike's "Just do it" tagline is widely cited as the most successful taglines in the advertising industry and even has its own article (Just Do It)Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A list of leagues where the customers have played, including one with SOTA Huskies when they played in the National School Games in Singapore.--HungKami (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest - May I request Hariboneagle927 to bar himself from the deletion request discussion due to conflict of interest as he is the author of the brand's competitor, LGR. I further request to strike out his comments from this discussion, regardless of whether they bear merit or not, so as not to demean the integrity of this discussion, and avoid turning this discussion into a brand war.--HungKami (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am no way affiliated with LGR (aside from being the creator of the article), My comments are just opinions regarding the article within the WP:GNG. Such assumption is undue and is WP:APPARENTCOI. I have edited articles discussing subject matters linked to competing company/brands. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hariboneagle927, I respectfully withdraw my request, and trust that you will be fair. Would it be possible to re-write the tone of this article so that it merits a space in wikipedia? If so, what are your suggestions for improvement?--HungKami (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hariboneagle927, thank you for the edit on the page. It looks much better now. Should this article now be removed from the deletion candidacy and instead be upgraded for improvement?--HungKami (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this can still improved but the article should be trimmed down, I afraid. I suggest highlighting the sportswear's most known customers (which plays in national leagues or leagues sanctioned by National Sporting Associations). The PBA Legends and involvement in the movie could be also mentioned. Community-level leagues should be at best mentioned in passing. It should be made clear regarding the nature of the multi-national companies transactions with the brand. Is it for a league within the company (usually for team building purposes), or they have a team participating in the national/regional league like in the case of all teams from the Philippine Basketball Association? The same for the government ministries/departments/agencies. Also I don't have the jurisdiction to close the deletion discussion only a third-party user. But you, me or other users can still state the rationale for keeping this article so the article would likely be kept.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hariboneagle927, thanks for the edits and I apologize for the earlier insinuation. I agree that some of the statements such as citations for verification, etc. But hope we can agree that this article should survive deletion? --49.149.7.22 (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind if this article is kept, but still you need to the convince other users who might be following this page of this article's notability. Please refer to the WP:GNG guideline which may prove helpful. Perhaps other third party links may be posted here supporting the notability of this article itself (even though they haven't integrated yet to the article)Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team Sure Win was created during the age of social media and was in fact instrumental in the growth of the brand. As such, most of the mentions about the brand are on Facebook. I understand stand on notability and social network, but it is what it is. Teams that play on leagues, usually just mention the team, but not who provided the uniforms. Most of the photos of the teams wearing the uniforms are also almost always on Facebook. Here are a few sites that shows the Team Sure Win uniforms:

Proform Basketball Academy^[2] has a website which shows photos of players wearing Team Sure Win uniforms.
English Football School^[3] has a website where you will see the students wearing the Team Sure Win uniforms.
Videos of the Singapore tele-movie featuring the Team Sure Win uniforms. Also shown at the end-credits.^[4]^[5]
News about PBA Legends in Singapore^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]

--HungKami (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of this currently suggests better satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has been established by the fact that the brand was used in international events and has gained coverage in national tv in two countries.--HungKami (talk) 06:28, 20 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 18:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article may be tagged for improvement, but the afd tag may be removed.--HungKami (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing but a few trivial mentions in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Barrie-Wilson[edit]

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable for WP:CREATIVE as my searches of "Wendy Barrie-Wilson actress" at Books, News and Highbeam only found the expected passing mentions and also IMDb noticeably summarizes her career to apparently not satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four movies, three TV shows, born in 1954. Notability is an issue. Delete 45sixtyone (talk) 06:16, 13 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 18:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The actor is primarily a stage actor has appeared in "more than 90 plays on Broadway and around the world". That would explain why there are few tv and film credits. Seems to have some reliable coverage online, including in The New York Times.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficent sourcing to pass GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ARTIST. Article needs a rewrite though. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FWIW though, the NYTimes article is basically a few paragraphs, hardly solid in-depth coverage and frankly that's all this article has, nothing else to suggest better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes our general notability guidelines, as well as our more specific ones as well. The article is certainly a bit messy, but I'll work on cleaning it up shortly. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 20:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for this article's retention have been made in over 21 days. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House of Dolha and Petrova[edit]

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

WP:N: No reliable source, independent of the subject, which proves that the family was notable enough to receive a separate article has been provided for more than a year. A general study of a region does not prove the notability of a family living in that region, especially if it was written by a member of the family. Borsoka (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:36, 13 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 18:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Swissa[edit]

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

She has a practice, has had some coverage in the media and belongs to some seemingly non-notable professional organisations. I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete - appears to be a go-to expert in Los Angeles news media on cosmetic and cosmetic treatment to cover up damage from surgery and cancer, e.g. here, here, here, here, which is a legitimate medical topic. But I don't see that this makes her notable in herself. If I saw senior membership or leadership position in some professional association establishing that she's notable in herself not just because her clinic is handy for TV crews to go to I'd vote keep, but I don't. Blythwood (talk) 05:21, 13 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 18:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the two news appearances were not stories about her, so it was not significant coverage per WP:GNG. Other sources are not reliable - ex: CTW (Connection to Wellbeing) is just a local advertising sheet that profiles its advertisers. She does not meet WP:ANYBIO as she does not seem to have any achievement, contribution or award different than anyone else in her field. Netrogeractor (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Leakhena[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as my searches found nothing better than one passing mention at Books here but hardly anything to suggest a better article here (Es.wiki has nothing else better). Notifying author Dr. Blofeld. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 13 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 18:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, due to the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs far More Articles. And Needs far more Notability Factors.CalabJessika (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable musician.The Cross Bearer (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Filip-Slivnik[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. simply being ambassador or ambassador to Russia does not grant automatic notability. no evidence of doing much as ambassador as evidenced by a mere 6 gnews hits with small mentions confirming her role. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 13 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 18:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though it's almost worth keeping the article to preserve the awful photo Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Who on earth thought that an image in which the primary subject's face was completely obscured by her hair was a good choice? Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomats can be notable if there's enough reliable source coverage of their careers as diplomats to get them over WP:GNG, but are not all granted an automatic presumption of notability because diplomat. If you have to park the sourcing entirely on a single press release from the government's own public relations division, then you have not gotten them over the bar that distinguishes a notable diplomat from a non-notable one. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if she can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kwayzar[edit]

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

Certainly questionably notable and improvable as none of the listed coverage, although some from notable sources, seem to solidly satisfy the applicable notability guidelines and the best my searches found were this (scpr.org), this and this. Notifying tagger Asarelah. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he satisfies the notability guidelines, then I have no problem with keeping the article. Removing AFD template. Asarelah (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if this were relisted a third time with hopes for better attention. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The sources merely confirm that he exists. Notability as a musician is not demonstrated, and for WP:GNG I would expect more than a few-line coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per noms. request —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please Clean Up and Clarify.CalabJessika (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable.The Cross Bearer (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "83-Year-Old Rapper "Can Still Do It" « Man Cave Daily". CBS News local.
^ "Off-Ramp". KPCC.
^ "‘I Can Still Do It’: 83-year-old rapper Kwayzar is virile and viral". Daily News.
^ "83-year-old rapper: 'I Can Still Do It'". Stuff.
^ "Singers, writers stay young". Press-Telegram. (subscription required) "Don't believe me? You can hear parts of the tracks at www.cdbaby.com/cd/kwayzar. Stan goes by the name of Kwayzar (his rap form of "quasar"), and if you log into the site, his fish-eye mug will stare back at..."

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Tukes[edit]

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON Joeykai (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene 93k (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failing WP:NGRIDIRON is not exclusive (WP:ABELINCOLN fails WP:NGRIDIRON). It's possible that a subject could pass another measure of notability, such as WP:GNG General Notability Guideline. At first glance, it seems that this may be the case with this individual and notability may arise from college play. I'm finding a lot of articles, but they need to be sorted through and I don't have time right at the moment to complete the full research required. But I am finding some online sources, so it's worth the research.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Subject may or may not satisfy GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, but he did get a couple of decent write-ups in UCF's hometown newspaper, the Orlando Sentinel: (1) "Once an undersized basketball player, Justin Tukes is now growing into his job as starting tight end" and (2) "UCF football's Justin Tukes, Kevin Miller promise a powerful 1-2 punch." That counts as a single source because the articles appeared in the same newspaper. Everything else I have found in independent sources so far is brief and "transactional" in character, and related to his NFL free agent ~~singing~~ signing in 2015. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. If significant coverage is found in additional sources, I'm willing to reconsider, but deletion of this one-sentence, uninformative snippet will not diminish Wikipedia in the least. Cbl62 (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. For those who follow football, he's a blocking tight end[49][50], which makes it even less likely there's much coverage linking somewhere.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, if the Wizard of Newspapers.com, Mr. Cbl62, can't find significant coverage in another two independent, reliable sources, then I'm afraid Mr. Tukes will have to live without a Wikipedia biography until he gets a better publicist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter P. Gudo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Was deleted per a deletion discussion in 2013, then G4ed several months later, and then recreated yet again. I should have tagged it back then per G4 but foolishly tagged it per G11. For more, see WP:BLPN#Peter Gudo. Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I've checked what's available via the links above and it falls well short of what would be required to establish notability per any standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. G11 wasn't a bad rationale--it has been a promotional piece, and notability has never been established. Perhaps sometime down the road, but now it's WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice, due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of this is convincing enough to better satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Notifying 1st AfDers Reddogsix, MrX and MelbourneStar. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No better references than the last time nominated. Again fails to establish WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources.- Mr X 13:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, having discounted the sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shahe Ali[edit]

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

Boxing promoter with no significant independent coverage. Mentions in articles by organizations he's associated are not independent.Mdtemp (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Only one of the two references has a mention of him and that was his opinion about one organization joining another. Nothing supports him being a Promotor.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Shahe Ali is a Boxing promoter and member of the World Boxing Association, the World Boxing Organization, the International Boxing Federation and the Pan Asian Boxing Association. There are many coverage in US media and India as well, the same can be checked and verified on their respective websites or through sending emails.

He is the president of Indian Professional Boxing Association. His interview about professional boxing in India has been published on fightnews.com and same can be read through the link by clicking at http://www.fightnews.com/Boxing/wbo-poised-to-make-moves-in-india-in-2016-311795. His article is also available on at WBO official website, http://www.wboboxing.com/wbo-poised-to-make-moves-in-india-in-2016/ where he talked about boxing future in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Lopez Merchant (talk • contribs) 14:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Julia Lopez Merchant (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note : Mr. Ali interviewed by Jackie Sunshine Smith at 28th Annual WBO Convention - Orlando, FL, USA. The independent video coverage is available to watch on official website of Sunshine Boxing Inc. (http://www.sunshineboxing.com/tvshow/) and official YouTube page of Indian Professional Boxing Association (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gt24_72EGw) which support that he is a promoter with World Boxing and President of Indian Professional Boxing Association. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by George M. Mathews (talk • contribs) 08:09, 23 January 2016‎ — George M. Mathews (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete My search didn't turn up what I consider to be significant independent coverage from reliable sources that would meet WP:GNG. None of the above comments provide any such sources. Being a fight promoter does not guarantee notability nor is being tied to various boxing organizations (which are the sources for the articles mentioning him). Papaursa (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe there are enough sources and relevant information about the article and I personally feel that we should consider it and do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiha Aslam (talk • contribs) 11:47, 25 January 2016‎ — Fabiha Aslam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep – It seems to me that Shahe Ali is sufficiently notable. Besides that, the article is interesting, adequately written, and contains several reliable sources. I also think it could be improved. George M. Mathews (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC) — George M. Mathews (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This Article for deletion is a mistake! Many good articles started their Wikilife in rudimentary form, and I hope this article is kept and can grow. As is, I found this article interesting and I enjoyed it. Reviewing the links provided above, I believe that this subject has received satisfactory coverage from reliable third party publications. --Singhaniasanjay (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC) — Singhaniasanjay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep As this article is very new and has potential. It is off to a good start. Fabiha Aslam (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Duplicate !vote struck. BC108 (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if he promotes boxing bills for all of these organisations, why is there no record of him on BoxRec? --Donniediamond (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot locate any significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG; all sources I have found are either directly linked to Mr. Ali (e.g. LinkedIn or Facebook pages), are closely linked to Mr. Ali (e.g. boxing organizations), or are not independently reliable (e.g. YouTube). — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dear Donnie Diamond, he just entered into boxing and started organizing professional boxing matches. Record will be updated soon on BoxRec.com Julia Lopez Merchant (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC) — Julia Lopez Merchant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. If the article is to be believed the subject should be easy to find in reliable sources but like Jkudlick I just can't find them. The large number of SPAs here (making classic non arguments) and the repeated vandalism of this page make me think something greater is afoot. But, at the very least, notability is not shown. BC108 (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note:. Julia Lopez Merchant, George M. Mathews, Fabiha Aslam, and Singhaniasanjay are Confirmed socks of Sameerbhatia2015. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sameerbhatia2015.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Visisys[edit]

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

The article provides no real reliable info about the company; 2 sources lead to the company pages which do not contain the info mentioned in the article (and no other specific info about the company whatsoever) while the dead one is not archive.orged. I did not find any coverage, just database entries. As such the article seems to be the main PR hub of the company ;-) WikiHannibal (talk) 15:26, 20 January 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 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only was this PRODed after starting, it still seems questionable with nothing to suggest better coverage and an overall better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Kiziloz[edit]

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

A7 of the article deletion policy Rohini (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A7 is a criteria for Speedy Deletion, which doesn't apply here, because the refs seem to show some amount of notability here. Haven't go thru the refs, so this isn't a !vote. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A business man noted mostly, it appears, for failing to acquire one Bulgarian football team, and now attempting to acquire another. As he has not yet achieved that goal, he does not yet appear notable, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, should evidence of non-trivial coverage of the subject come forward at a later date. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hallman[edit]

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

Recording engineer, producer, and session musician whose sole claim to notability appears to be a single article in Rolling Stone in 1977 that describes his (non-notable) band's association with Carole King. Even that link appears on a third-party website, not RS's, although the article may be genuine. The other sources are not considered reliable (AllMusic, etc.) The discography, while massive, consists almost entirely of work as a recording engineer and session musician, with some credits as producer, but again, is completely unsourced. The entire page appears to have been designed carefully in a short period of time to overwhelm the reader with information, as if the size of it will confer notability. It does not, in my opinion. Rockypedia (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I respectfully disagree. I have just begun this page and will be adding more content to it in the next few weeks. There is a film coming out this spring about this very humble artist. The third party site is Cameron Crowe's personal site - the author of the Rolling Stone article who (look him up) is extremely notable. Mark has been name checked on TWENTY SEVEN other Wikipedia pages. SnowyOwl512 (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTINHERITED Rockypedia (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am not sure if I have a voice in this discussion as I am the creator of this page but strongly request a KEEP. I have added a few more links and updated content including his winning two years in a row Producer of the Year at the Austin Music Awards held at the SXSW Music Conference. Most of Mark Hallman's interviews are pre-internet. I replaced the original Rolling Stone link I had to another link - it was syndicated in the New York Times and other publications as well and written by Cameron Crowe. The Austin Chronicle interview - http://www.austinchronicle.com/music/1996-11-08/525544/ is lengthy. He personally produced three albums for Carole King, performed in her band alone and as a part of Navarro, which served as her backing band. Navarro themselves are notable, releasing two albums on Capitol Records in the '70s, although they do not yet have a page. There is more information I am in the process of researching about Mark Hallman's association with Dan Fogelberg as well. I reduced the discography to the bare bones and will find further articles if necessary. SnowyOwl512 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You most certainly do have a voice here! Bold that keep!!! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I moved some references around and did a copy edit -- I agree that the article initially overstated his significance. But notability has been established; the Austin Chronicleis a reliable source, and Hallman is featured prominently in the Rolling Stone article. PBS and Billboard confirm that he did in fact produce Carole King, not just work with her as a musician or engineer. Also - just as an aside - Navarro passes WP:NMUSIC if only because they released two albums on Capital. I suspect they would also pass WP:GNG but it would require digging since they broke up in 70s. JSFarman (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JSFarman. Passes WP:NMUSIC. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Country Bus Devon[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this but that's almost a textbook definition of "trivial passing mention". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as none of this suggests better notability. Notifying local autos user Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister - Thanks for the notification but ummm I'm the nominator , –Davey2010^Talk 09:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Travis[edit]

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

I do not see how the subject of this article is notable. The article does not really explain what she does and that is because she does not really do much. The article states Travis is a "beauty and lifestyle expert" but does not go on to explain how she is an expert or what she does that makes herself an "expert". I also find the article to be somewhat biased/promotional towards the subject, specifically with the "Philanthropy" section (which is all unsourced). Some of the sources are iffy too. The first source appears to be a blog and is opinionated. The fifth and sixth sources are to the subject's YouTube channel, and the twelfth source is to a website which they used to raise money for a charity. Andise1 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the creator of the page and have been paid to create it. The subject is a famous YouTube personality. The number of her followers and coverage on portals like CNBC and Bloomberg verifies that she is a "beauty and lifestyle expert". Please feel free to edit the page if you feel it biased towards the subject. I'll try to find and add some references in the philanthropy section as well. Mr RD 16:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator of the page has been paid to create it and so will probably be biased towards the subject thus breaking WP:NPOV. Also, the subject of the article is about is not notable enough to have her own article. Tom29739 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably" doesn't work on Wikipedia. Neither does disclosing WP:COI and Lack of neutrality do. As far as notability is concerned, the subject easily meets WP:BASIC. I invite you to kindly raise the points where you feel the page is does not meet WP:NPOV so that they can be addressed. I tried to write every statement of the page keeping in mind Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Mr RD 03:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The philanthropy section is still unsourced. The one source in that section is to www.familyvlogs.com which does not appear to be a reliable source. Also, the source for the "Personal life" section does not say the subject's children's names or the date in which they were born, nor does it state the date in which Travis married her husband. The article still does not clearly state what she does. As I mentioned above, the article states that she is a "beauty and lifestyle expert" but does not state what she does that would make her an "expert" (i.e. what are her YouTube videos about. Source number ten also does not appear to be a reliable source as it is from the company which represents Travis. The way in which it is used as a citation for Travis's education/beginnings is not directly in the source, rather it is in the Bloomberg article which is linked via the source. In short, a lot of the sources seem questionable and there is quite a bit of unsourced information in the article. Andise1 (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references for the philanthropy section. Mentioning names of her children does not warranty a deletion. If you've researched carefully on her and gone through the references, you'll find that she gives beauty advises through her YouTube channel (which btw has more than 1.3 million subscribers). Mr RD 16:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because she has 1.3 million subscribers it does necessarily mean that she is notable enough to get her own article on Wikipedia. Also, the sources in the article need to be from reliable, independent sources so not portals like CNBC and Bloomberg. Tom29739 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of subscribers she has is irrelevant. There are plenty of YouTube personalities, or beauty "experts" on YouTube with over a million subscribers, so that really does not mean much. You keep talking about CNBC and Bloomberg, which are reliable sources, but they are only two sources. Those are probably (along with Tubefilter and GeekWire the only reliable sources in the article. More sources in reliable publications are needed (and also more sources in general). Also, I never said mentioning her children is why this article should be deleted, I merely said that the information about her children and their dates of birth are uncited and thus cannot stay in the article unless a citation (in a reliable source) is added. Another thing is that some of the stuff does seem promotional. In the lead section, there is a sentence which states "Judy's channels were listed among the top 1% of the YouTube's "Google Preferred" Channels For Advertisers in both "Beauty" and "Family & Children’s Interests" categories." This to me sounds awfully promotional, considering it appears to not really be of relevance to the subject nor is it a statistic that appears to be important. Andise1 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided many more references for her below. Regarding the uncited content, you are free to remove them to maintain neutrality to the page but remember objective promotional facts are allowed over Wikipedia per WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:ASSERT. In case of top 1%, I agree with you that it sounds promotional, it'll be better if we can write it more neutrally. What do you think? Mr RD 07:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube subscribers can be bought. We need RS to establish notability. Legacypac (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News, Yahoo News (Bloomberg video), CNBC, Fox News, LA Times, Huffington Post,King5 - CNBC, KY3, E Online, Metro, tubefilter, Media Post. Are these reliable sources not enough? Mr RD 06:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy instead as I certainly notice the listed sources but I'm still finding this questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, sufficient independent coverage--Prisencolin (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's mentions by CNBC and Bloomberg, true, but that's not enough by itself. Several of the other links mentioned by the person being paid to defend this page are simply rehashes of the same Youtube video. There may be enough in the future to establish notability, but at the moment, I don't see it. Rockypedia (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are other coverage as well like here and here which cover different news. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG. I request to kindly reconsider your position based on the facts and not my affiliation with the page. Mr RD 20:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing is far too flimsy, as others have remarked above. It doesn't do the image of paid editors much good, I'm afraid. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here is not about my image but whether the subject is notable or not. Based on the references that I provided earlier and now, the subject is clearly notable. Mr RD 20:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article currently covers the subject in a manner that relies too much on primary sources to be retained. (Note: This close does not hold prejudice against the article being re-created immediately with proper sourcing.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lift Conference[edit]

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

Nonnotable event, no independent sources - üser:Altenmann >t 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overuse of primary sources, not noteworthy in the slightest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.67.39 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 January 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ A review of news coverage in the link above shows significant, multiple coverage from various news sites. Appears to be a sort of lesser TED-type event that meets WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What news coverage? I see one BBC link - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands (without prejudice) - there's one news link, which is Bill Thompson from the BBC writing up his visit to one. Almost everything else is primary, and the BBC link is the only RS - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't primary, nor this, nor this, nor this. Some of the coverage is more substantial than others to be sure, but it seems to be enough to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. to be sure. The current state of an article isn't why we delete , unless it's egregiously bad and not worth retaining, as you well know as an admin. I'd argue that is not the case here and of course Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP. There are indeed too many primary sources but that's a matter for tagging and editing, not deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First link: total coverage is "Ten submissions feature Bengaluru data, says Johann Recordon, project manager of Lift Conference, which brought the exhibition to India with swissnex India." That's it. Second is a blog (it even calls itself a blog), and reads like a press release or paid blog content. Third is a second piece of RS coverage, yes, thank you. Fourth: total mention is "Seedstars World winner will be announced during the Final Event that will be hosted on the first day of Lift Conference, one of the top innovation and tech conferences in Europe." in a site that calls itself a "blog". This is super-skimpy, and for something claiming such a long record, two RSes ever is dismal. It's also not clear why you're putting self-proclaimed blogs forward as RSes - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rude Baguette does indeed call itself a "blog," as in "France’s Startup Blog – an English-language publication covering the French tech market." It has an editorial team, I see, and bylined articles. I'd never heard of it but as far as I can see it's RS, it does appear to meet WP:USERG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a press-release or paid advertorial, which certainly doesn't meet WP:USERG - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If so, that would certainly be a pertinent point. Here's another news story, from the Swiss edition of The Local. Though I do note again that Seedstars the funders rather than the conference is the primary focus. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's clearly tangential and doesn't support notability or serve as any sort of usable reference - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course a "usable reference," per WP:V at the very least. And ORGDEPTH suggests that mentions like this in multiple sources, when combined with more in-depth coverage, may be of use in establishing notability when combined with more substantial coverage -- though the wording is up to different interpretations. That said, I may change my !vote to neutral if nothing else comes up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'll go there right now: change to neutral. No one disputes that we have about two strong references establishing notability, then a lot of passing references -- or in the case of the French tech blog, a possibly affiliated source. I think the problem here is how the article has been expanded with so many primary refs, by multiple IP editors, to where it does seem like Wikipedia may be being misused per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This is one case where, if the editors had simply created a balanced short stub, with the bona fide RS that are out there, we wouldn't in all likelihood be at Afd. Because there's enough coverage that this article probably falls just shy of GNG. But in its current state, WP:TNT arguably applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've added "without prejudice" to my opinion - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability issue addressed. I've added sources to the article's talk page. We should improve, not delete flawed content. 5 incoming wikilinks indicate interest in and potentially notability of this material. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we should improve, if we can. I had impression we could not, in this case. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could stubify it back to first and last paragraph of the current lead. ~Kvng (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The sources added are literally the bloggy sources from this AFD above - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nothing new here, I just copied the sources from the discussion above for use later. I now appreciate that David Gerard is not in agreement that notability has been established. I feel it has and I think the article should be kept and improved. ~Kvng (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cluedo#Variants. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Hitchcock Edition Clue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alfred Hitchcock Edition Clue

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

I have done some research into each of these board games and I highly doubt they pass GNG. Many have been unsourced for years, for example the Alfred Hitchcock one has remained practically the same since it was created in 2006. I didn't nominate Cluedo: Discover the Secrets as it has a notable reception section, or Cluedo DVD Game because I worked on it myself and deem it notable. Coin945 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all appear to be as non-notable as the game above. Hopefully sources can be found to save at least some of them:

~~Clue Dungeons & Dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~
Clue Jr.: Case of the Missing Pet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clue Suspects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cluedo Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clue: The Great Museum Caper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cluedo Master Detective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cluedo Mysteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cluedo SFX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Delete No secondary sources provided to show these versions of Clue are notable. A list of versions could be added to the main article if not already there. Skylark777 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clue Dungeons & Dragons was already merged and redirected per a previous AFD, so should be removed from this one. BOZ (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have struck the entry above for Clue Dungeons & Dragons per the merge result that was already determined at this AfD discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apologies. I got confused because that article was still in the "Clue" template...--Coin945 (talk) 03:45, 6 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) 07:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if needed and perhaps Redirect to Cluedo#Variants where it is mentioned as this is questionably separately notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Cluedo § Variants. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per North America. BOZ (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete. Little to no information found in news sources. Spshu (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mass Merge and redirect to Cluedo variants unless any can establish specific notability. Probably with the D&D redirect also being moved to match. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence of this article's subject being given significant coverage in reliable sources has been presented by those asking for its retention; therefore, this article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FLEEK[edit]

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

Very new musician who appears to fail wp:music. Except for one source about him getting a grant, all the others seem to be links to his work. Google does not turn up anything much better. Perhaps in a few years. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears better notable articles have been included. Reference; Encyclopedia of Film Composers by Thomas S. Hischak, The New Biographical Dictionary of Film: Sixth Edition, and The Cosmic Compendium by Rupert W Anderson. Jpedilla (talk) 9:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- These seem to be bare mentions (ie the source is actually about other people, but then he is mentionned as being involved, most often as director). I don't know if directors are often considered notable based on this. However, if so, we seriously need to trim the article down to his role as a director. His music career is far from notable. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Article has been meticulously trimmed down. FocusInRegard (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — foxj 13:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there are a ton of hits, they are not about this subject. Can't find enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HappySquirrel and onel5969. Does not appear to pass GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsharpminor (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 January 2016‎

Keep Vevo Reference of FLEEK is Clear. It is Legally Binding with Universal Music Group. Whether not this needs more reference, is unclear, for the word for the name is also from a popular slang word. Overall, passes minimal general GNG. CalabJessika (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable musician.The Cross Bearer (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks Notable to me, as compared to other pages I've seen. Agree to Jessika Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaintNickEschling (talk • contribs) 04:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A name change was suggested; no action taken on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australia standard pallets[edit]

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

Whole article is seemingly based verbatim from the first source since 2004; though I can't assertain if possible the source has been updated since that time to integrate data from WP... _→AzaToth 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article adds nothing useful to what is already at Pallet#Australian standard pallets. Relevant standard is "AS:4068-1993". ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 11:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Not independently notable and already has a home as described by Hydronium Hydroxide above. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydronium Hydroxide and Athomeinkobe: notice though that the text in Pallet#Australian standard pallets contains the same text as the article (manual copy paste from rendered), which seems to be a double copyright violation. _→AzaToth 07:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AzaToth:Which parts of the page(s) do you identify as potentially plagiarised, and from where? The first 2004 version of the Australian Standard Pallets page read:

Australia Standard Pallets are square hardwood pallets which are standard in Australia and non-standard anywhere else in the world. They are 1165mm by 1165 mm in size and fit perfectly in the RACE (container) of the Australian railways. They are ill suited for the standard 20 foot and 40 foot ISO Containers used around the globe.

Note that Omega uses the more-recently introduced incorrect "[1]", and Harders includes both the original first sentence and the "Racking" sentence but not the intervening sentence, so it's not clear to me in which direction there's been copying (it's also possible that perhaps the one editor wrote copy for both wikipedia and website...) ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 08:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pallet#Australian standard pallets as a plausible search term. IF we suspect this article stems from a copyvio, then delete first before redirecting. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has encyclopaedic content and a long edit history going back to 2004. As text has been pasted in to the Pallet article (originally in this 2007 edit) it now must not be deleted as the history must be preserved for licensing reasons (unless there is also a massive rev delete of the Pallet article). I was about to close this as a procedural keep myself for that reason, but I also think there is a case for keeping on notability grounds and intend to expand the article, so that would make me involved and not an independent closer. Whether or not this does end up as a redirect/merge is not really best decided at AfD in any case.
- I do not believe that this article is a copyvio. Reasons for thinking that are very flimsy and there is strong evidence that copying is in the other direction. The Wikipedia article was created in December 2004, but the earliest capture of the Pace web page is May 2013. Nothing on any page of the Pace site was captured prior to 2007, so it is quite possible our article even predates the formation of the company. The first version of our article has the first two paragraphs run together, the Pace page has them separated. The separation in our article happened on 1May 2007, just predating the first capture of Pace, again indicating that they copied from us. The Pace page has the word "non-reversabe" inserted in the first sentence. This word does not appear in any version of our article and it is quite unlikely that a copier would have bothered to remove this word, or even have a reason for doing so.
- On notability this report from the World Bank discusses the cost and benefits of Australia converting its standard pallet. Australian Transport contains an article on Australian standard pallets and also discusses converting to ISO. Practical Handbook of Warehousing mentions that Australia was one of the first to have a standard pallet. Metrication, the Australian Experience discusses the relevance of ASP to metrication (astonishingly concluding that it was needed for metric packaging]. I've only just started looking, gbooks is showing hundreds more results for the search term, so I don't see how the claim this is not independently notable was arrived at. SpinningSpark 15:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that deletion as non-notable is inappropriate, and copyvio has more than reasonable doubt (mine was a WP:REDUNDANT argument -- the reverse-fork/incomplete-merge is a bit odd). Although a redirect would maintain edit history, given User:Spinningspark's intent to expand the article change vote to Keep (but rename to Australian standard pallet).^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too thought it was a question of redundancy. I also change to keep and thank Spinningspark for the research work. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aeonx (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ludwig[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. See also Trevor Ludwig deletion discussion. Iheartthestrals (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Blatant failure of WP:BEFORE, as Ludwig was a two-time First Team All-Star in his league, a fact prominently highlighted in his article and which meets criterion #4 of NHOCKEY. As such (and as winning the CHL's final Most Outstanding Defenseman award), odds are quite likely that sources satisfying the GNG are out there. Ravenswing 06:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the sources are out there, I'm having a bad time finding them. There is a short ESPN blog entry from 2012 that is basically a WP:NOTINHERITED situation since it was really only written because of their father's notabiliy. Nothing on highbeam, Nothing else on Google. Reso lute 17:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have located a mere two articles that mention Ludwig's name. The majority of articles when you search for 'Tyler Ludwig Texas Stars/Houston Aeros/San Antonio Rampage' reference Tyler Seguin and Ludwig Blomstrand individually. These are the articles, and the second one is actually about his brother but mentions him:

[51] [52]

Both of these articles are from Dallas Blackout, which, as far as I can tell, is a Dallas Stars news site. Iheartthestrals (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I would call that site a credible source. I was able to dig up one link that should help assess his notability. [53]

It is very tough to find articles on this player, for now I will weakly support deletion as I don't think he can pass GNG. If there are more articles that can be found from other sources that aren't routine sports coverage then I'll be willing to reconsider my current position. Deadman137 (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't call it reliable either, but they are the only two articles I was able to locate. True, he passes WP:NHOCKEY no. 4, but fails utterly WP:GNG, so I would sanction deletion also. One thing I might mention is that the CHL is no longer in operation, so does it still apply for a defunct league? Iheartthestrals (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would still apply for a defunct league as the surviving teams from this league joined the ECHL. Deadman137 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete marginal player. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1st team all star in CHL meets criterion #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if not kept, it should be redirected to the "Personal" section of Craig Ludwig, which mentions him, and the information about his awards should be merged there. Rlendog (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kubity[edit]

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

No indication of notability per sources available online and in print. Only scant Polish references. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kubity was edited on Jan 6th. Today, it has more detailed information and references. Hopefully it is now in accordance with Wikipedia Guidelines. When searching Kubity on Google, we find multiple relevant references: https://www.google.fr/search?q=kubity&oq=kubity&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0l2.2815j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeca Moreno Noriega (talk • contribs) 13:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott D. Stockert[edit]

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

Arrested for trying to kidnap Obamas dog. Believe that this is a case of BLP1E. Otherwise non notable person Gbawden (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. This person got plenty of news coverage world wide for this event. Like it or not, this is notable, the article is crap but that can be fixed and we do not delete articles based on article quality.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly WP:BLP1E. significant coverage doesn't apply if it's about one event concerning a person. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E of an alleged criminal, with no preexisting notability for anything else besides the 1E, and who has not yet been convicted in a court of law. Per WP:PERP, this kind of thing is not an appropriate topic to rush into on the basis of the immediate blip of coverage — if and when he's convicted, an article might become appropriate (though I still suspect not, as I'm hard-pressed to see this ever becoming anything more than a very minor footnote in the annals of history), but it's definitely inappropriate for us to keep an article about him today. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muallim Rıfat Faculty of Education[edit]

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

We usually do not make articles on individual colleges of education within a university unless they are particular distinguished , and this one seems not to be. Furthermore, it's a mere directory entry. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is unlikely independently notable and could also be merged and redirected if needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with no objection to a post redirect if so desired. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khurshid Anwar Jilani[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable, at least English-wise, as my searches found nothing better at all even India-based searches, and none of this suggests better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tried and failed to find subtantive coverage of any kind. Perhaps there are sources in Urdu; I highly doubt there are substantive things in English that I've missed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On its way to deletion, but giving some time to provide reliable sources--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice, should evidence of non-trivial coverage come forward at a later date. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Saylor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet any aspect of WP:MUSIC, and fails WP:GNG - all sources are either promotional (Press releases, event announcements), or local news bits on local events, including high school plays. The NBC article does not even mention him. Scr★pIron^IV 18:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was honestly so surprised when I saw there wasn't already a page for this artist--especially considering half the artists recognized. He's a nationally signed touring and recording artist, performing with some of the world's biggest names in music. I'm unsure of how the publication (whether it be national or on the state/local level) devalues the success and notability of a person. Saylor has a large social following, verified on social accounts, and continues on the debut of his first full length album. I will go through and clarify the layout and change some of the sources. --Freemindfreeline16 — Freemindfreeline16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to fail WP:MUSICBIO. All of the sources are primary, user-generated content, or local press only. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those requesting the article be retained have failed to show how it meets the requirements of WP:GNG, specifically that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Therefore, the article's subject is found to not be currently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TVPaint[edit]

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

This topic is not notable and there are not sufficient reliable sources to prove its notability. The article reads like an advertisement for TVPaint and a substantial amount of references appear to come from TVPaint's own website. A number of recent edits have come from the TVPaintDev who has not disclosed the obvious conflict of interest. As a result of this the four points upon which I am proposing its deletion are:

Does not meet notability requirements under WP:GNG
A severe lack of reliable sources to verify its notability
The article reads like an advertisement for the software, rather than an encyclopedia article.
The article has experienced a substantial amount of work carried out by someone with an undisclosed COI.

I therefore propose the article be deleted. Calvinkarpenko (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and WP:TNT at best I suppose as I found several links at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam but perhaps not enough yet. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to find several reliable sources citing TVPaint as use for many notable TV shows and films, and this does look like great animation software to use. However, the lack of in-depth coverage about the software leads my vote to being a Weak Keep. I'll be happy to see if this does get in-depth coverage, however. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 23:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the few drawing programs that is currently being developed for Linux. Your comparison page for these software packages lists a whole bunch of ones that haven't released a version in years, even up to a decade. They _were_ notable, but are not now. It turns out this isn't the one I'm going to use, but plainly this is notable. A cursory Google search reveals talks at film festivals, fan pages, animator groups and galleries, plugins for it, bloggers referencing it, and (the mark of success) illegal cracks. When I come to Wikipedia, I expect to learn more than I would by just asking Google. The page needs improvement, not deletion. 24.57.206.239 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016 Paris police station attack[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS and beyond that nothing happened and the description itself is just a bunch of quotes. If this is notable enough (where attacks on police in many a places are not rare) it can go on the list of terrorist incidents (although I doubt this qualifies as such)). Lihaas (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS - not even a real explosive belt. More of an attention-seeking incident. If necessary can be included on appropriate lists AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commen I think this may be deletable as well 2016 Philadelphia police officer shooting given number of shootings in US on a daily basis. AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, event was covered by major news outlets like the Wall Street Journal--Prisencolin (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Passes WP:GNG it has been covered by major media outlets worldwide including New York Times and Wall Street Journal now whether this has a WP:LASTING impact is difficult to say at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this incident is too significant. There were more significant attacks in France this year that didn't got an article and maybe they shouldn't.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received further attention in German media following the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany and police raids in Recklinghausen after the events.[54]--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Jones (Actor)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON on this actorbio. No evidence of notability to meet WP:GNG standards. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, nothing to suggest a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this does not meet WP:ENT - actor must have had significant roles in multiple notable productions. None of the productions listed (short films, school plays, 1 commercial) are notable. Netrogeractor (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and I should note I had planned to comment myself but this seems obvious enough for a close now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrees Allen[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of acting credits on major TV shows and movies. Meets WP:NACTOR based on his recurring roles in Women's Murder Club, The Practice, and Dark Blue. He's not a huge star but he seems to have played a ton of named characters in major productions over the years. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that he meets WP:NACTOR because as well as films and tv he has appeared in notable stage productions on Broadway such as Aida and Henry IV.Atlantic306 (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not exactly the role model of an actor that meets WP:GNG but a WP:BEFORE search reveals that some of his roles in film and television along with his roles on Broadway have warranted some coverage. For the record, the above keeps do not address the heart of WP:NACTOR which fundamentally is a guide to help determine if this person could meet WP:GNG. Even if they meet NACTOR, the second step is to meet the burden of proof by showing their notability with independent sources: playbill, Dallas News, Des Moines Register, among others. Mkdw ^talk 06:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alldredge[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've actually seen several of his acting appearances but perhaps none of this suggests a better notable article and I also only found the expected mentioning links at Books, News and browsers (but nothing considerably better). SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE search revealed very little WP:SIGCOV. The only thing that caught my eye was the NY Times link but it just links to an internal search query for his filmography. Mkdw ^talk 06:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Incorrect venue. The nominator has created a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 § January 20 Category:Terrorist incidents in Burkina Faso in 2016 North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorist incidents in Burkina Faso in 2016[edit]

Category:Terrorist incidents in Burkina Faso in 2016 – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Meaningless category has only one article which can, and does, appear in other catergories. Lihaas (talk) 07:22, 20 January 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 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I've not done a category for deletion before. However, I created Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 20 Lihaas (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close This is a cfd nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 20#Category:Terrorist incidents in Burkina Faso in 2016 and is withdrawn per the nominator, above. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Saint Clark[edit]

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

Already tagged for notability, I don't believe that this person is notable. Just one of hundreds of tattoo artists Gbawden (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going to have to vote delete on this one. There are tons of tattoo artists out there, and nothing to show this one is particularly special. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete online refs either failed verification or dead link. Fails WP:ARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Unable to find anything which makes this person notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did a quick WP:BEFORE search and didn't come up with anything to suggest this individual passes WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 06:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 06:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinkin Out Loud (Kristinia DeBarge album)[edit]

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

WP:NALBUM - Came out today. Don't see what makes this notable right now. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.222.20 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 January 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. It is a useful resource on the artist recordings. 65.197.222.20 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if it belongs to a project, and even if it is WP:USEFUL, that doesn't necessarily make it appropriate for Wikipedia. The album does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 04:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This album represents the artist. However, it needs more information such as reception. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 07:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio CTK-401[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 06:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additor[edit]

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

Move to WP:Additor? Maybe. It says "wiki-based". 333 -blue 06:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too short and just a definition of a tool used (kind of). Jackninja5 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means, nearly even speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's Real Estate Tycoon[edit]

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

Article about Computer game which does not meet any notability requirments such as WP:GNG or WP:NGAMES. Searches bring up a couple reviews from sites which review every little game [55] and the one reference in the article which only talks about the game moving onto a mobile platform, nothing which satisfies significant coverage. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No doubt this is an actual game but it is not significant enough to keep as an article. As mentioned above, the game is only covered in a couple sources reviewing the game. Meatsgains (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What more is needed to make this thing notable? What is significant coverage? 173.55.37.52 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in reliable sources such as Gamespot and Vice.com should suffice to meet notability --Prisencolin (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage seems sufficient. Artw (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple secondary reliable in-depth (reviews) sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Custom RS search brings up the most relevant hits. There's also [56], but the site is likely to not be deemed reliable at WT:VG/RS. I would mostly argue keeping per being a content WP:SPLIT from main article. (Re GameSpot, it's one of the largest video game review sites, so they do review a lot of games, but they also don't review many others, such as those that didn't survive AfD.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears to have received sufficient coverage from reliable third party sources to satisfy general inclusion guidelines. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there's seemingly enough for a separate article and this is overall unlikely to be better mentioned at his article if there's enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Donald Trump. Dkendr (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the 3 sources used, one is a review, one is a press release type article which has no value and the last is an article which uses the game as a brief comparison for Trump's current political ambitions, it does not talk about the game in any real depth it is more of just a mention. I still don't think this is enough to pass WP:GNG and seems to be an extremely low bar for inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmatter (talk • contribs) 16:56, January 21, 2016‎
Comment Doesn't the external link say anything about the game? It's seems adequate. 208.54.4.172 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The external link is a user generated website which has no value, in fact the inclusion of this wiki site has been a matter of debate for awhile as it is definitely not considered reliable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is relative trivial. No reason to merge into the bio article. There's no point in trying to merge in everythign that uses his name. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How often does a video game feature someone well-known? If I'm going to make a game featuring a celebrity, I need to pay royalty which is not cheap, otherwise a lawsuit from that person is likely. I wonder, is notability solely based on how much people comment about it in the media? 172.58.16.159 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability as used on Wikipedia has a very specific definition, which is that the topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Metrics like popularity are not used for this, although they can indicate that a topic may be notable. Many popular topics are not notable on Wikipedia. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources of the article are independent of the subject. Even the source you added here which is in Russian is independent of the subject. They all tell about the game. What more do people want from sources? 172.56.17.127 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources appear to say about the game sufficiently. Some users claim the sources lack some things but they wouldn't elaborate what. A review is sufficient. Duke17 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus reached; KDS4444, please avoid the personal attacks. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTS Group[edit]

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

References consist of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in trading websites, links to non-notable awards or awards of dubious notability ("Stevies"), refs. to the company's own website (not WP:INDEPENDENT), etc. Am not seeing enough here to qualify the article's subject as notable per WP:ORG or, therefore, WP:GNG. Article needs multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, independent sources in order to be retained. (The opaque business neologisms of the lede might qualify the article for deletion under G11, but am unsure of this so am bringing to AfD instead). KDS4444^Talk 03:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the majority of references, although brief, seem to come from a variety of reputable sources I disagree with the deletion of the BTS Group Wikipedia page. the page seems to need updating, but a brief Google search brings up a wide range of references and pages that corroborate what is written here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hreeve11 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You can show us what some of these links are, yes? Otherwise this is just hot air in a cold wind— where's the beef, good sir? And being trivially mentioned, even by Bloomberg (see below), does not constitute grounds for notability— we need in-depth coverage, not just trivial mentions. Where are they? And if they do not exist, what grounds then for your !keep vote? KDS4444^Talk

Keep I disagree with the deletion of the BTS Group Wikipedia page. I would dispute that the majority of the references are trivial, coming from reputable sources such as Bloomberg, Reuters, and other independent websites. [Aside: "trivial" is not a description of the nature of the company covering the subject, it is a descriptor of the KIND of coverage the company receives— which is still "trivial", even if Bloomberg and NASDAQ cover it— please see WP:TRIVIALMENTION to understand what I am talking about. KDS4444^Talk} I would also dispute that "Stevies" (Stevie Awards) are non-notable awards as they too have their own Wikipedia page.[Another aside: that Wikipedia page shows that they are an awards mill— that does not make their awards genuinely measures of notability. Please understand this. KDS4444^Talk] References to the company's own website could be cleaned-up but are consistent with the links on other Wikipedia pages to company websites.[Final aside: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What else you got, for an IP user?? KDS4444^Talk] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.129.130 (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there is not enough in-depth third-party sources overall for a better solid article. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to explain in somewhat normal language what they actually do, but it is still a keep. The company is listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange. I made a very quick search for sources and could only find one in-depth source on the company, this long article in Veckans Affärer on BTS and its CEO Henrik Ekelund. But there is also a large amount of routine coverage of quarterly reports, acquisitions, share value and so on: [57] (Affärsvärlden), [58] (Svenska Dagbladet), [59] (Dagens Industri). And that is just from the Swedish busness press; there is more in international media. It is a problem in this context that the business press is still largely print-only or behind paywalls; they cater to people willing to pay for timely analysis and in-depth coverage. --Hegvald (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside: as I have now mentioned three times, that fact is irrelevant. / Aside: a thousand routine reports of stock holdings and share values isn't worth a single reliable independent in-depth article on the company, which I have yet to see. / Aside: that should not stop someone like yourself ~~with almost 2,600 edits on the English Wikipedia since 2007~~ (sorry, that was mean) and who has access (?) to material from behind these paywalls from adding such reliable in-depth references to help prove the notability of this company. If you don't do it, then their existence is left up to the mists of the Internet, and might as well not exist at all, therefore counting nothing towards notability (as near as I can see it so far). KDS4444^Talk
  - I removed the comments you inserted into mine and put them underneath in standard indented format. --Hegvald (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for this: "someone like yourself ~~with almost 2,600 edits on the English Wikipedia since 2007~~ (sorry, that was mean)" -- If you thought it was mean, why did you write it in the first place and why did you strike it but keep it in the comment for everybody else to read? And what was the relevance or even the point of the comment? How was it "mean"? Are you suggesting that I have made too many edits? --Hegvald (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, company is listed on Stockholm Stock Exchange and seems to meet WP:GNG.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed in the stock exchange is not a defining criterion for inclusion. How does it meet WP:GNG specifically? You have not answered the question, as it were... Not yet, anyway. KDS4444^Talk 08:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the BTS Group article should be kept. A review of other Wikipedia articles covering global consulting firms such as Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and KPMG reveals that the BTS Group article contains the same subject matter, is written in the same language, and cites similarly respectable third-party source references including Reuters, Bloomberg Businessweek, and Nasdaq, Inc.. Furthermore, dozens of Wikipedia editors have contributed to the article further validating its importance to the community. While there may be some room to improve the article, I believe this work should be kept as a part of the Wikipedia library.]].--Nathan Ives (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So says Nathan Ives, a WP:SPA dedicated to the preservation of this article. Do I really have to throw in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (again) and WP:INVOLVE (anew) here? It seems I do. Neither argument for inclusion on these bases is usually considered viable. So let me say it again, louder: can anyone show us multiple references by reliable independent secondary sources that cover this subject non-trivially?? Because if you cannot, then this article still should not be hosted here. KDS4444^Talk 08:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: Inserting your comments into those of others is not the way it is done in Wikipedia. We use indented comments for good reasons. Please change these comments to the normal indented format. Or are you expecting others to insert their replies into your already inserted comments? Or directly into your nomination? How do you expect that your system could be kept up for a couple of rounds or more? --Hegvald (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Edit: Fixed it myself in the case of the replies inserted into my comment above. --Hegvald (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this discussion is interesting, at its center appears to be a dispute between @KDS4444: and several other editors as to the relevance or non-triviality of the references for the BTS Group Wikipedia page. Since the back and forth over Wikipedia's formal definitions does not seem to be satisfying this group or at least KDS4444, I would offer a reference to KDS4444 authored Wikipedia pages such as Peter J. Pitchess Detention Center and Pop-up exhibition. Assuming KDS4444 considers his pages to be well written and sourced, the BTS Group page exceeds the required standard. The Peter J. Pitchess Detention Center page almost solely references the institution's own website and the Pop-up exhibition page is not much more than a sales pitch for the Banksy's Dismaland event. To answer the charge that the Reuters, NASDAQ, and Bloomberg Businessweek mentions are trivial reveals an unfamiliarity with these organizations. All but the very few largest companies in the world receive what KDS4444 would call trivial mentions by these organizations. I would assert that the BTS Group mentions within these publications are not trivial by the standards set by these organizations... the standard I believe we should be using and not the apparently personal standard KDS4444 is asserting in his initial assertion and many rebuttals. Our discussion should center on whether or not the BTS Group article is relevant, factual, unbiased, and important - something of interest and value to the Wikipedia community. From the discussion, no argument has been made that it does not meet all of these criteria. Furthermore, it appears that only a small, vocal/loud minority believes this article in some way does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines and that the majority of editors believes it does. KDS4444, repeating yourself over and over does not make your argument more plausible or right. The personal attacks don't either.--WikiEnthusiast2014 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 06:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Roth[edit]

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

Non-notable TV meteorologist. Fails WP:BIO - none of the refs demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RESUME and WP:CRYSTAL ramblings about her future work (and let's never use "traffic girl" in an article again). Nate • (chatter) 03:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill meteorologist, not notable. Simply appearing on TV doesn't confer notability. Neiltonks (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local, clearly not yet better notable. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 06:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brampton Lake[edit]

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

non notable body of water Prisencolin (talk) 00:47, 20 January 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 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only things said are that is located near the Kenora District, Ontario and the coordinates. Jackninja5 (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every individual lake on the entire planet (of which there are apparently over two million just in Canada alone, let alone the rest of the world) does not need its own Wikipedia article — lakes are certainly notable if something substantive can be written and reliably sourced about them, but if all you can actually write is "This is a lake that exists, the end", and the article's been like that for 13 freaking years because nobody's ever been able to add anything else to it, then that's not a lake we need to keep an article about. Bearcat (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't say it better. Also, googling Brampton Lake tends to turn up a different lake, Professor's Lake, in Brampton. There is just nothing out there on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Sphilbrick, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Le Zoute Concert[edit]

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

Possible hoax. I can't find anything other than Wikipedia mirrors, which is strange given that this is supposed to have been attended by so many notable people. Adam9007 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced. Jackninja5 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and I agree almost certainly a hoax. Any event with such a significant list of performers would be covered extensively but there's nothing, not even a clip on YouTube. Neiltonks (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 06:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jinhao[edit]

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

No indication of significance. NeedAGoodUsername (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company has no real notability. Jackninja5 (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No better signs of even minimally better notable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2719141

[2] ttp://www.proformbasketball.com/gallery.html

[3] ttp://englishfootballschool.com.sg/

[4] ttp://www.irismi.com/two-boys-and-a-mermaid/

[5] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWeSr718_HI

[6] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R0tnImka40

[7] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft7Gyv5kmAg

[8] ttp://www.philstar.com/sports/2014/08/08/1355294/pba-legends-show-wares-singapore-tour

[9] ttp://sports.inquirer.net/160965/pba-legends-asia-tour-set-in-singapore

[10] "83-Year-Old Rapper "Can Still Do It" « Man Cave Daily". CBS News local.

[11] "Off-Ramp". KPCC.

[12] "‘I Can Still Do It’: 83-year-old rapper Kwayzar is virile and viral". Daily News.

[13] "83-year-old rapper: 'I Can Still Do It'". Stuff.

[14] "Singers, writers stay young". Press-Telegram. (subscription required) "Don't believe me? You can hear parts of the tracks at www.cdbaby.com/cd/kwayzar. Stan goes by the name of Kwayzar (his rap form of "quasar"), and if you log into the site, his fish-eye mug will stare back at..."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]