Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 April 5 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW and my comments below. The article creator also blanked the page at one point, so I'm going to count that as an endorsement of the article's deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply

The National Memorial

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

Article by the book's author about a self-published book (via CreateSpace) that fails WP:GNG, with virtually no coverage found from a Google search on "national memorial" "john barth jr".

As for WP:NBOOK, more specifically WP:BKCRIT, criteria 1, 2, and 5 relate to claims in the article.

  • Criterion 1: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself [which may be reviews]." The article provides links to a number of reviews.
  1. Foreword Reviews: Beneath the review is written the following: "Disclosure: This article is not an endorsement, but a review. The author of this book provided free copies of the book and paid a small fee to have his/her book reviewed by a professional reviewer. Foreword Reviews and Clarion Review make no guarantee that the author will receive a positive review." While no guarantee of a positive review is claimed, it stands that this was a paid-for review. Not independent.
  2. GoodReads: User-generated reviews, not a non-trivial published work.
  3. BookLife: This isn't a review. It's a collection of two- to four-line snippets from reviews elsewhere, by unidentified authors—other than the one ascribed to an editor from the book's self-publishing company, CreateSpace. Not a non-trivial published work.
  4. Counterpunch: This, I think, may qualify as a nontrivial published work.
  5. Readers' Favorite Reviews: User-generated reviews, not a non-trivial published work.
  6. USA Book News: Another compilation of quotes from other reviews—mostly the same collection as the one that appears on the BookLife page.
Conclusion: There is, at best, one non-trivial review. Criterion 1 is not met.
  • Criterion 2: "The book has won a major literary award." The article refers to "honorable mention awards". Though some speak of honorable mentions as awards, the whole point of an honorable mention is to say that "Even though this entry didn't win an award, we would like to give it a special mention." Anyway, at each of the events where it received an honorable mention, it was one of a dozen or so books in its category to receive one. These don't qualify as "major literary award[s]".
  • Criterion 5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." John Barth jr doesn't meet WP:GNG. The user John Barth jr has suggested that his being the son of John Barth contributes to the merits of including him, but notability is not inherited. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 23:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
:-)) -- Randykitty ( talk) 06:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. If a review is paid for, this makes the review primary. The tone of the review doesn't matter, as they could be asserting that the book is the literary equivalent of an Ed Wood movie. Although in my experience these reviews are almost always positive, which is part of the reason why Foreword's Clarion Reviews is listed in the vanity awards article. Writer Beware also discusses why paid reviews are problematic from a general perspective. The bottom line is that paid reviewers have a strong conflict of interest, making it nearly impossible for Wikipedia to be able to ever see them as an independent and reliable source.
  2. Awards don't always mean that something is notable. The reason for this is that there are so many awards out there and some of them are actually fairly easy to get. Some of them will give out a prize to whomever can pay their fee and others are contests so small that there's really no prestige to the awards, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. There's a saying on here that less than 5% of awards are notable - and that's all awards in all categories, from books to science. Of those awards, less than 1% would be a major enough award to give complete notability. Honor awards usually don't count towards notability on here unless the award is particularly noteworthy, like the Belpré Medal or Newbery Medal. These are considered to be pretty prestigious and books given honor awards for these awards because there are so very few honor awards given out - assuming that they give them out that year at all. Book festival awards are rarely considered to be prestigious enough to give notability even if they win the top award, so being honored is usually not seen as a sign of notability on here. The general rule of thumb is to look at the festival and the award coverage. If the festival is extremely noteworthy (like the literary equivalent of Cannes) and the awards get a ton of coverage, the award is more likely to be seen as notable. A search for the book festivals mentioned in the article brings up very little coverage. This means that these festivals would not be considered to be notable festivals on Wikipedia. Don't take this badly - most festivals and awards are non-notable on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that the awards aren't impressive, just that they don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for award and event notability.
  3. Reviews posted on social media outlets and blogs are seen as self-published sources and will almost never be seen as notability giving. Many of the social media-esque outlets aren't even usable as even a RS to establish basic details, so reviews on them will not be seen as reliable - especially since user reviews can be easily swayed. Robert Stanek is one of the most well known examples of why reviews on places like Goodreads or Amazon (an e-commerce site but similar review rules) will not be seen as usable.
Also, please do not make WP:ADHOMINEM attacks on Wikipedia. Not only is this not acceptable on Wikipedia but it also makes incoming editors on the defensive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro ( talk) 19:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Haruka Ishida

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

No indication of a substantial career outside the band, as outlined under WP:MUSIC. Large amount of the information duplicates what is already available through the band page or list of members. Karst ( talk) 19:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Except that No Name is a subunit from AKB48, so it isn't independently notable. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 22:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
It is independently notable cause it is a separate group. It charted independently. (And each member in it represents herself, not her main group.) By the way, it isn't a subgroup of AKB48. The group included several members of AKB48, SKE48 and NMB48. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 22:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
It should perhaps be noted that Moscow Connection is the creator of the article. Just to clarify, I have used this AfD as a guideline, where @ Drmies: outlined the bandmember pages criteria as "people [who] have done anything that makes them notable according to the GNG outside of their group membership". When that has been established I'll happily withdraw the AfD. Karst ( talk) 14:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Hey Karst--I suppose I was merely citing WP:NBAND: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Which, by the way, means not that they have to have had a solo release, or that a solo release in itself is grounds for notability: any solo release obviously needs to have generated something along the lines of secondary sourcing from reliable sources. Drmies ( talk) 14:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your clarification. That is exactly what we are trying to establish here. Karst ( talk) 14:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Moscow, "each member in it represents herself, not her main group"--I can't really parse that, and I don't think it means very much. Drmies ( talk) 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection ( talk) 20:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection ( talk) 20:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
It is still a spinoff of AKB48 and 48-group members and managed under the 48-group umbrella. It's different from a solo career or a crossover endeavor with other musicians in other groups. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 14:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Except that the anime characters are related to AKB48, so not independently notable. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 14:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The radio programs are AKB48 related. Same with the anime. The Vocaloid may be okay, but does she have a main role in the title? The radio one where she promotes the phone app is a maybe, but is the game notable in itself and does she star in it? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 14:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Good points. Going back to the Apink example, there it was established that the member names all redirected to small bio's on the main page. The exception was Jung Eun-ji who branched out into acting - and has a career entirely outside of the band. Hope this helps. Karst ( talk) 15:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • What this person has done does not strike me as notable at all per GNG. A few anime roles (with our without the band) does not notability make, and neither does hosting a radio program or doing a voice part. The TV appearances all seem like bit parts, and there is no reliable secondary sourcing to prove that any of these things were worth noticing--and please y'all, don't cite things like this (from "4gamer.net") to prove notability: that's not sourcing worthy of an encyclopedia. Drmies ( talk) 15:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with Drmies, there is trouble when there is no secondary sourcing present. Her anime roles also appear to fail WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply
I am changing my opinion to Keep based on developments. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
What developments? The only change to the article since the AfD has been a newsitem where she announced her graduation and ambition 'to pursue her dream as a voice actress'. Karst ( talk) 14:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I like to express some thoughts: i) It would be easier for everyone if the contested articles about lesser known members of AKB48 would actually contain more than the little information which is actually present in these articles. Especially when the available content only deals with things directly related to her status as a AKB48 member, and could be derived from the general articles as well. Hence, i dont know if this person needs her own article, because she really belongs to the members of the group which are only known to the fandom. And the article in its current form does not help it. ii) In general, I dont think treating members of japanese idol groups as real musicians (and thus, under the scope of the Music guidelines) would bring us far. Members of these bands are rarely musicians (or even artists), and it is quite the misunderstanding that AKB48 is a musical band in a traditional way. AKB48 releases are rarely bought because of their musical content. They are entertainers in the broadest sense, and one should think of AKB48 as a agency for female entertainers/ tarentos, who are participiating in a never-ending "reality tv with music." iii) With this in mind, IMHO the sentence "everything X does, depends on her role as member of Y" is not tackling the issue. With this argument, Rino Sashihara doesnt deserve an article, while she is certainly a very big name in japanese entertainment right now - but everything she does is directly related to her status as a member of these groups. I saw that the article Sayaka Yamamoto was contested for the same reasons as well, which is weird, given that she is one of the most talked-about idols in Japan right now. So, the real question here is if Wikipedia can or should or wants to adapt to special properties of japanese entertainment industry, because merely applying rules which were created for real musical acts does not do the trick. iv) If everything fails, almost all adult members of these groups can count as Gravure idol, for which even a own category exists. Take this with a grain of humour :>. Rka001 ( talk) 00:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply
There shouldn't be an exception for Japanese idols as there are plenty of music group members who are in the same situation where they are mainly associated with the group and perform vocals. Liam Payne and Louis Tomlinson have separate articles where even though they are members of One Direction they have notable independent activity from the band such as solo career, football and golf. But yes, those secondary major roles help made the person notable and distinguish them from "I'm with the band" inherited notability. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Being 'a big name in Japanese entertainment' or 'most talked-about idols' needs to be supported by reliable secondary sources. AKB48 is listed as a musical group. I refer back to the aPink example. The list of AKB48 members article (and the groups associated with them) could include the material listed in these articles and thus avoiding the issues highlighted in this AfD. The comparison with One Direction is a complicated one as the members of that group already had a developing career prior to joining. Karst ( talk) 11:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your input. This is not article-related work, but rather an exchange of thoughts. Therefore, i was using the cases of Sashihara Rino and Yamamoto Sayaka to illustrate the difficulties when the notability of a japanese idol is evaluated by wikipedia guidelines. Both are extremely popular in Japan - i dont think this needs to referenced here in this informal context - but their individual popularity cannot be decomposed from their status as members of a notable group. Still, it would be extremely counterproductive to remove their articles. Apink doesnt really fit here in my opinion. Apink is foremost a musical act, but AKB48 is a multimedia enterprise, for which music is a important, but by far not the only vehicle. Also, in contrast, the entire group has several hundred current and former members - which makes the use of short bios within main articles a mess - , of which i daresay that 20-30 would easily pass notability criteria. The same argument could be had with the male counterpart, Johnny's Entertainment, by the way. One direction is also not well comparable to AKB48. Again, AKB48 does not fit the definition of a musical act, even if its listed as musical group here. It doesnt make too much sense, to apply criteria for musical groups. Rka001 ( talk) 13:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply
I see your point about the group being entertainment, however, that argument can be made about every musical group/pop band. The so-called multimedia aspects all relate back to the group, carry the name and are obviously used to promote the brand (and listed as such on the main page). If the category is under discussion then that needs to be addressed on the main Talk page. I use the Apink example because of the AfD discussion about notability of individual members and the consensus that was reached there after reviewing the sources. The issue the same here. Moreover, a noted administrator, Drmies, provided clarification there that also applies here. There is a List of AKB48 members and a List of former members of AKB48 but I see your point in those pages getting overly long when the bios are merged. They currently list the various team pages with members mentioned in tables. Perhaps the solution here is to create individual pages for the teams and then move some of the content of individual pages to the team pages. So Yui Yokoyama would go into the AKB48 (Team A) page with a 'see also' link to the Not Yet (band) page. That way the content is still associated with the group, the various releases associated with it and the notability issue would not arise. Karst ( talk) 14:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Um, definitely not split by Team (A,K,B, etc.). The individual teams don't carry enough notability. But I agree about discussing whether to split members can go on the members talk page. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 14:27, 21 March 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 // 14:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to AKB48 at best since this is not seriously needed for deletion but it is still questionably solid as its own, likely best until there's better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – The article must give attention to her non-48 roles such as Dream Creator where she was a semi-regular guest in 2011 and then joined as a MC (co-host) of the variety show starting mid-2012. [8] Note, in that profile, she is listed as involved in AKB48 but not a major star in the group (Under Girls and other B-sides), but is nonetheless independent from the 48 work. The Nobunaga the Fool role is a supporting lead, which gives her at least two major roles in anime. But if the only stuff available is her involvement in 48 then it needs to be redirected right away. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, it is difficult to analyze the sourcing because it is primarily in Japanese, but it seems to me there is enough to pass muster. Also its worth noting that she has an article in six other language versions of Wikipedia, presumably the Japanese and Korean Wikipedians would know best. Antrocent ( ♫♬) 19:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as per discussion. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hour of the wolf

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

Yet another misplaced TV Tropes article. The core concept of an hour of the wolf in folk belief might possibly be notable, but there is no actual content relating to it in the article - it's just a list (almost entirely unreferenced) of popular culture mentions of the phrase "hour of the wolf" (most of which is handled by the disambiguation page anyway). At the very best, this is WP:TNT material. Kolbasz ( talk) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's conceivable that an article could be written on this topic, but I'm not completely convinced. A search through Google Books mostly turns up novels of that name. If this is a notable concept, I think we'd be better served by having a red link here to encourage a better article. Like the nom says, this is basically a TV Tropes article. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 07:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm pretty well-versed in cultural tropes and this was genuinely a new one on me... and, after reading this list, it still is. Someday a folk historian may join our ranks and write about this concept from an academic perspective, if it is really a notable cultural/academic concept (which looks to be the case, but it's difficult to conceptualize an idiom that, by this list of examples, seems more likely to show up in musical compositions than in written/audiovisual works, for whatever reason). On board with NinjaRobotPirate's redlink notion. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep arguments does not make anything beyond a simple assertion to how this article will satisfy our WP:N requirements. Yamamoto Ichiro ( talk) 10:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Adana derby

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

Contested PROD. Concern was No evidence of sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment - I'm not sure you have satisfied GNG by any means here. There are several issues with the sources you provided:
  1. Sources 1 and 5 are exactly the same link, so it is a bit disingenuous to show it twice, did you mean to post something else?
  2. Sources 2 and 4 may be from different sites, but they show exactly the same photos with no supporting text, so again can't be used twice to support GNG
  3. How does a series of photos support the nature of a rivalry? All it shows is that fans attended the games, there is no discussion of the notion of a rivalry, so they do not in fact support GNG
  4. Either way, sources 2 and 4 don't look like particularly reliable sources anyway, they are just fan pages for various ultras groups
  5. Source 3 consists of a paragraph of text, this may indicate a degree of coverage, but hardly supports GNG.
At best then, you have presented one significant article and one minor article. I just don't see GNG there, particularly as, somewhat unhelpfully you have just dumped in a load of links in foreign languages without attempting to explain context. Are you able to help elucidate please? Fenix down ( talk) 10:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
reply:
1. "don't look like particularly reliable sources anyway, they are just fan pages for various ultras groups" - so because they are about a certain subject/with a certain focus it means they are unreliable? Both are international pages and unbiased, in that way we can deride any source; "just a news website with articles", "just a statistics webiste", "just a sports website".
2. I don't speak any Turkish so I am unable to do a proper search - this just what I searched in English within 2 minutes and found with the little of other languages I could comprehend. The very fact there are German / international pages writing about a lower league derby surely indicates some notability; it is very rare for any foreign website to cover anything below level 2 of the pyramid.
3. "How does a series of photos support the nature of a rivalry" - well calling it a "derby" for a start suggest rivalry, if it was nothing special no-one would pay any attention to it. How many lower league games do you know of anywhere outside of western Europe where twenty thousand people turn up, especially given in Turkey where maybe a few thousand at most usually attend with the exception of a handful of teams Abcmaxx ( talk) 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply
update: found more elaborate articles [14] [15] here's a FourFourTwo article [16] also found a video of some riots which usually shows a bitter rivalry [17]

Abcmaxx ( talk) 23:20, 17 March 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 // 14:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - insufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sources raised in this discussion such as ultras-tifo.net and casualultra.com are clearly inadmissible as WP:RS, regardless of the truth of any information presented there. Looking at some of the sources through Chrome automatic translation, I cannot see any confirmation of it being the "fifth most popular city derby in Turkey" - WP:OR? Videos, which may prove something exists, are not exempt from the GNG requirement, and I cannot see that this has been satisfied in this case. C 679 08:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete does not have notable sources. Daniel Kenneth ( talk) 09:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as per discussion; no meaningful notability or sources. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Tim Kruger

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

WP:BLP of a pornographic film actor, making no claim of notability per WP:PORNBIO and sourced entirely to primary source confirmation of his existence on his own self-published porn website, rather than reliable source coverage about him in media. A better claim of notability and better sourcing might be possible, so I'm willing to withdraw this if the article receives the necessary improvements, but nothing here gives him an automatic "just because he exists" freebie. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consesus seems to be to delete DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Snake Pit

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search apart from KLOV. A redirect to the dev ( Sente Technologies) could suffice. czar 20:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Based on what reliable, secondary sources? czar 23:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
There's this one. R. A. Simmons  Talk 02:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Here's a link from Google Books. Snake pit is mentioned in the magazine on page 66. R. A. Simmons  Talk 13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
And how would that be significant coverage? czar 11:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply

*Keep I've found some pretty good sources for a little info on it. It may not actually meet notability, but there is information out there. I'd say it could be kept as a stub or given some more complete mention on the developer's article. R. A. Simmons  Talk 13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply

If it doesn't meet notability, it shouldn't stay.
I'm really okay with it going either way, I suppose. I'd like to see those sources put on the developer article, though. I could do it, or someone else could, if it so pleases them. R. A. Simmons  Talk 13:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as this is overwhelmingly clear (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply

List of people named in the Panama Papers

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

A list of the clients of a particular law firm, however famous or powerful the clients may be, is not encyclopedic and not a suitable topic for a standalone list, particularly where the implication may be drawn that the individuals mentioned have been involved in criminal acts. In most cases we don’t know that for a fact and probably won’t for years. The proper place for this material is in individual biographies and in the main Panama Papers article if it can be justified under our normal criteria for material about living persons. Philafrenzy ( talk) 20:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 20:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This list purely supports the main article Panama Papers. More than 140 politicians and possibly hundreds of other notable individuals are connected to the leak. To help keep excessive trivia off the main article this list should be kept at least for now. It is already made abundantly clear by the list article, the main article and the sources that simply being associated with the law firm implies no wrongdoing. -- hydrox ( talk) 20:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep I have read 10+ articles about Panama Papers so far, including interactive analysis, but have not found such a list. It is useful and will be more so in near future. Zezen ( talk) 20:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this topic is definitely notable, a google search for "people in the panama papers" reveals lots of news articles, e.g. from the ICIJ, the Metro, the Guardian, CNN and Reuters. While we may not know whether the people involved actually broke the law or not right now, the article isn't list of people who broke the law and are named in the Panama Papers, but list of people named in the Panama Papers - not implying that they broke the law. Also, there are a lot of notable/important people who are named in these, the Panama Papers main article will become too long and list-like if we include them in there, and it is also useful for readers to see a list of people named, so just being included in individual biographies won't be useful. How else would you learn that Nurali Aliyev was named in these papers? https://web.archive.org/web/20160404035443/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2782968-Aliyev-Nuralidoc1.html  Seagull123   Φ  21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Using offshore companies is not ilegal in any place that counts. People's names are being dragged through the mud just because they set up or were part of an offshore company at some point. Let's suppose someone steals the Wikipedia editor database today, and all editor's names and emails are published as a result. How would you feel about that? XavierItzm ( talk) 23:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
A pretty hyperbolical comparison. The page lists notable people and their close associates whose connection with Mossack Fonseca has been singled out in reputable sources. -- hydrox ( talk) 23:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
When there is a WP:RS to back the inclusion, fine. When the source is merely primary, i.e., ICIJ, and therefore per force selectively leaked by ICIJ, it is a pretty arbitrary and unfair muckraking. Think Wikileaks releasing only the names and emails of government employees who edit Wikipedia, as opposed to releasing the entire database. XavierItzm ( talk) 23:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't see the problem - inclusion in the list, and on ICIJ's website, implies no guilt. UaineSean ( talk) 00:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Of course there is no guilt. However, the main article currently reads "an operation which offers shady operators plenty of room to manoeuvre." Surely Wikipedia editors wouldn't be as cavalier about their own names and emails being published, should their names be on articles that refer to "shady operators" with "plenty of room to manoeuvre." XavierItzm ( talk) 00:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The notion that there are "places that count" in the world is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. 74.74.184.103 ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as per discussion. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Wang Dogma

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

I cannot find any significant independent coverage, having searched for the person's English and Chinese names. None of the sources cited in the article mention his name, except for island6, the gallery that represents him, which is not independent. Fails WP:ARTIST. Zanhe ( talk) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 18:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 18:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Hobit: What in the world are you talking about? The creator moved this page to mainspace on their own. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It looks like the Popblack created a draft and moved it here October 3, 2010 and then recreated that in userspace on October 8, 2010, worked to change the contents on February 27, 2011, tried to G7 this page (I'm guessing to move the revised draft here) and then gave up. Since the name isn't even clear in the sources and the draft is very questionable, there's no evidence about what is going on here other than either this is the right page and the other draft should be deleted or this is a hoax and that the other page belongs at MFD for potential deletion. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this and any userspace copies. No independent reliable sources discussion the subject directly and in depth. As per Laura Jamieson. Essentially, it is promotion of a non-notable artist. Do not write on subjects that others have not already written about. I think it is well written, but it is promotion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

{

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 promotional autobiography. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Elina Miyake

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

WP:TOOSOON - She does not (yet) meet our guidelines on notability for actors, which call for multiple notable roles. The roles listed in the article and at IMDb are not notable, they are not even named characters. Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Ramanujam ganesh

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

PROD removed by page creator, no indication of notability. Laber□ T 14:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability, promotional. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

My Study Community

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

Promotional article, Author removed PROD. No indication of notability, linked articles by HuffPost and kidshealth do not seem to mention company. Laber□ T 14:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2006 Lebanon war. Clearly a POVFORK of the target article. Katie talk 00:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Attacks affecting Lebanese industry in the 2006 Lebanon war

Attacks affecting Lebanese industry in the 2006 Lebanon war (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As possible WP:POVFORK of 2006 Lebanon war. This article isn't referenced on the 2006 Lebanon war page, and this page doesn't link there. It's an oddly specific page. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 14:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Or REDIRECT, see my comment below. E.M.Gregory ( talk)
  • I'd agree with the nominator on some kind of selective merge. Now, as to what gets merged, well, that'll be sorted out in the normal editing process (if there is such a thing when it comes to the Middle East on Wikipedia). But the main article does seem to be lacking in some details about key damage to Lebanese infrastructure, above and beyond historic sites. And maybe there's useful content that can be moved to 'Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War', too, I dunno. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect as this seems best, perhaps no solidly necessary deletion needs and this could be moved there. SwisterTwister talk 01:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

HD 222582 b m

HD 222582 b m (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This object does not exist. It is an entirely hypothetical moon of a known exoplanet, that might be potentially habitable if it did exist. Te article is currently a single sentence, although the previous version was considerably longer. Lithopsian ( talk) 13:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NASTCRIT, old version failed WP:SPECULATION. No real content at all, crh23 ( talk) 14:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 promotional, non-notable -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 16:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Zakoopi

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

This company appears to me a run of the mill online business. The Entrepreneur (magazine) reference verifies that there is a business of this name.

I question whether is online business meets WP:CORP, WP:GNG, or any number of other policies and guidelines.

As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete "my middle name is oops proven wrong" AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 13:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Although still relatively small compared to others, Zakoopi has quite good influence, importance and coverage. It has applications on the Android [1] and Apple store [2], which is available to everyone globally. It helps people locate apparels and other fashion resources around them. It has quite a good coverage. Promotional tone has been edited and adjusted. This page was created as a stub, with options to build on as time goes on. Please reconsider and keep. Wikielite360 ( talk) 14:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
— Note to closing admin: Wikielite360 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

References

  1. ^ "Zakoopi". Android.
  2. ^ "Zakoopi". iTunes.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
You can comment as much as you want about the merits of the arguments put forward, and add as much additional information as you want to this discussion, but please only write one keep/delete recommendation. I've struck your second "keep" for clarity. Kolbasz ( talk) 11:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America 1000 04:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Tai Gwalia Cyf

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

This draft has no references. It probably is not notable, but it is not notable without references. Robert McClenon ( talk) 12:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 apparent notability. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Davi Claudino

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

Individuals do not appear to meet the general notability threshold: no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Cmeiqnj ( talk) 12:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: also nominating Dan Claudino (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cmeiqnj ( talk) 12:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

52 Cancri

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

Star stub with no notability and no references. Lithopsian ( talk) 11:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. crh23 ( talk) 14:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I found an astronomy catagory, not sure if it's active, but it looks to be.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Not notable. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

No Nay Never podcast

No Nay Never podcast (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. SST flyer 10:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Agree with above layla 13:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 10:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 10:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Springfield, benefiting THON

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

Already tagged for notability, this is a minor fundraising effort at PSU, non notable IMO Gbawden ( talk) 08:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 08:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 08:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficiently clear consensus. I don't really see any useful merge. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Jade Dolman

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 09:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 09:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Merge what? She once modeled at a fashion show. She teaches art. So what? Merge discussions on such obscure subjects seem mostly useless and mostly ignored. When not ignored they're flooded by fanboys and those with vested interests. AFDs get a broader and more varied audience. AFDs are not, contrary to your claim, disruptive and damaging. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. adequate consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Most successful multi-sport clubs

Most successful multi-sport clubs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Think this is a case of LISTCRUFT - if nothing else the scope of this list is too big that it requires regular updating, which as an orphan its likely to receive Gbawden ( talk) 07:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Scratch21

Scratch21 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Scratch21 (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Generations (Scratch21 album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poorly sourced (the only footnoted "reference" here is a Facebook post, and none of the external links constitute reliable source coverage in media either) article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, along with a completely unreferenced article about their debut EP and a social media-sourced article about their forthcoming full-length album. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which every band gets to have an article just because they exist -- real, reliable source coverage in real (not social) media, supporting a claim of notability that passes NMUSIC, must be present for the band to earn a Wikipedia article. Delete, without prejudice against future recreation if their notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat ( talk) 23:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Six Bomb

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

I'm not sure this group meets the notability criteria of WP:BAND. They have no charted music, and most articles about them are very short and look like routine news coverage about their performances on music shows. Their pink body suits drew some negative attention (e.g. [18]), but it still seems trivial. Random86 ( talk) 23:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 ( talk) 23:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 ( talk) 23:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 20:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Charles Poekel

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

Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office and as the author of a book. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per WP:NPOL, so his includability in Wikipedia depends entirely on the book -- but the sourcing here isn't remotely adequate to satisfy WP:CREATIVE: of the nine sources cited here, five of them get clobbered right off the top as primary or routine (a wedding announcement) sources that count for nothing toward GNG, and of the four sources which do represent actual media coverage, one is about the campaign, one is about his appointment to a local committee that cannot assist notability, one is about him presenting a paper at a symposium and just one source is actually about the book. But if "the book exists" is really all the notability you can claim for a writer, then it takes a lot more than one source to get him over the bar on that basis. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Paul Bracken (poker player)

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo ( talk) 20:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 08:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

IRS-Impersonation Phone Scams

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

Not really an encyclopaedic topic - more of a news article, perhaps suitable for WikiNews, but not Wikipedia so much. | Naypta ✉ opened his mouth at 20:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Important historical event/situation that has been ongoing for over a year or more, not news. Notable as it affects over a million civilians. Notable as it affects the integrity and branding of the IRS. Not a news item as primary sources come from the IRS. Significant coverage available from many different sources I have not included. Could easily be improved and expanded by someone who's more expert at library science than I am. Metawizard —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Swiss National Science Foundation. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

NCCR Trade Regulation

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder ( talk) 20:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rathfelder, considering the only edits made to the article since it was created in 2006 are from bots (and maybe a few random category additions from editors who didn't show any other interest in the article), I think you should be WP:BOLD. :-P IMHO, improving the sources/content doesn't have to happen at before its moved. Maybe that would spark some interest in it if there are editors following any of the other related articles. PermStrump (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Coporación Aceros Arequipa

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Was nominated before in 2013 and kept because of 1 "keep" vote that said "Large and notable Peruvian company with plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources". But no "plenty reliable independent sources" have been added since 2013. P 1 9 9   ✉ 17:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Murder Seen

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

Article is about a film lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The film was apparently a direct to DVD release. The two references in the article are (1) a press release from the production compamy and (2) a dead link for an article in a university campus newspaper. My own searches for reliable source coverage does not find any. Whpq ( talk) 16:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
in looking further:
year:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
USA title:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
writer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Brazil theatrical:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Brazil TV:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spain TV:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Italy:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G11 (spam). Randykitty ( talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Alex Carrillo

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

No news articles available online about Alex Carrillo WP:IRS Historywiki11 ( talk) 06:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 08:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 08:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America 1000 07:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Philippe Dajoux

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

No sourcing except to IMDb and no real claim to notability otherwise. — Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Well it wouldn't be, seeing as this page was created as a translation from the French. (I know - it was me.) Searching on google.fr returns numerous results, including IMDb, Allocine and a number of press articles. In addition, his films receive significant coverage and his work on the popular and long running French soap Plus belle la vie attest to notability. Give me time, I'll knock up some refs. Emeraude ( talk) 10:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Which I have now done. Emeraude ( talk) 12:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply
IMDb, as with all other wikis, is not a usable source. — Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply
IMDb can be useful for verification. The other added references ( [22], [23], [24]) appear to be useful for establishing notability. I'm retracting my Delete position and may advance to Keep once I've learned some French :) ~ Kvng ( talk) 00:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I beg your pardon. Are we into lingofascism now? Emeraude ( talk) 09:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Agreed with Emeraude. That argument is nonsensical. Notability is notability, regardless of the language. — Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I stand behind what I said. Just because an article subject is relevant to speakers of a given language, it's not necessary to have a deletion-candidate article in every language under the sun, particularly in the era of Google Translate. Would you be willing to contribute stubs for this subject in Urdu, Klingon and Faroese? Dkendr ( talk) 20:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply
If lingofascism is a phenomenon, why doesn't it have an article? Dkendr ( talk) 20:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 13:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

John Welch Jones

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Has not received significant coverage, except for this noted source which confirms that he was indeed the superintendent of the Insane Asylum of Louisiana. This achievement, however, does not appear to cross the threshold for notability outlined in WP:ANYBIO: that "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Dr. John Welch Jones was considered significant enough to be included in historical books.

Fortier:

https://archive.org/stream/louisianacompris03fort/louisianacompris03fort_djvu.txt

and

also in the historical archives of Louisiana:

http://files.usgwarchives.net/la/eastfeliciana/bios/jones.txt

It is surprising that any one would think his entry deserves to be deleted.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Software-defined storage. North America 1000 08:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Storage hypervisor

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

Term "storage hypervisor" is clearly invented and not used by anybody else. Every single citation source is a link to a PR site, company own site or paid TechTarget resource will be posting anything they are paid to post. There's no way to improve the article because no independent sources found. Industry doesn't use "storage hypervisor" term either. NISMO1968 ( talk) 12:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

  • MERGE ...with Software Defined Storage. Virsto is defunct company acquired by VMware and product discontinued. Compellent acquired by Dell and wording used no more. IBM kind of started to push "Storage hypervisor is a rapidly emerging way of describing the same value points in..." [3] but "rapidly" did not bring in anybody since 2014. APS (Full Auto) ( talk) 14:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The deletion rationale was that it was "clearly invented and not used by anybody else". It has been used, and whether it is still used is not relevant, unless it has been replaced by a new term and can be redirected to it. Peter James ( talk) 15:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Cannot comment on "clearly invented" but I guess Software Defined Storage is what's used to describe this technology now. "A storage hypervisor is software that allows storage to be controlled centrally in a storage pool regardless of what hardware the storage is located on." [4]. "Software-defined storage (SDS) is an approach to data storage in which the programming that controls storage-related tasks is decoupled from the physical storage hardware." [5]. Definitions come from TechTarget I personally hate. Either way "storage hypervisor" and "software-defined storage" describe same thing. IMHO. I'd do a redirection from "Storage hypervisor" -> "Software-defined Storage" instead of just deleting "Storage hypervisor" because second has 100x more hits in Google alone. I don't like the idea of keeping "Storage hypervisor" article AS IS just because it's very confusing in what ordinary "hypervisor" actually is. Again, IMHO. APS (Full Auto) ( talk) 15:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Zakoopi - relevant journalists and media outlets". anewstip.
  2. ^ "Zakoopi". e27.
  3. ^ http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/technotes/tips0991.pdf
  4. ^ "What is a Hypervisor?".
  5. ^ http://searchsdn.techtarget.com/definition/software-defined-storage
  6. ^ "Hyperconverged Infrastructure | HCI Solution | DataCore".
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Peter James ( talk) 13:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment found one article on Google Scholar which mentions this, albeit only in passing: Snyder, Brett; Ringenberg, Jordan; Green, Robert; Devabhaktuni, Vijay; Alam, Mansoor (2015). "Evaluation and design of highly reliable and highly utilized cloud computing systems". Journal of Cloud Computing. 4 (1). doi: 10.1186/s13677-015-0036-6. ISSN  2192-113X. – "Similarly, a storage hypervisor can be used to manage virtualized storage resources to increase utilization rates of disk while maintaining high reliability." (p. 12); "Based on the insights garnered during this study, future work may include the following: ... Evaluating implications of server and storage hypervisors on the reliability of a CCS instead of using a simple resources requested vs. available scheme" (p. 14) SJK ( talk) 09:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If it's going to be kept it should be made vendor neutral. At least links to company sites removed because now it's a link farm: vendor pages, dead links (Virsto), and PR articles (ESG and TechTarget). If article will be kept I can try to re-write it / modify. Let me know what you think. Thanks! APS (Full Auto) ( talk) 19:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment OK so I've removed a) links to vendor pages used for citation, b) dead links (parked domains, redirects etc), and c) ones with a clear COI. I've also included all the links and quotes and citations from this up-to-date "Talk" page. Does "Storage hypervisor" look better now? APS (Full Auto) ( talk) 07:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge: It looks better than it did, but I'm voting for a delete/merge as suggested above. There's not a whole lot of useful content, but perhaps some is salvageable in that context. Chrisw80 ( talk) 05:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as I've been watching this AfD and this seems best, no serious needs for deletion perhaps. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America 1000 08:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Oussama Belhcen

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

Previously deleted after AfD in January 2016 after having been accepted at AfC and protected against recreation [25] by User:RHaworth. Another version of the article has now been moved back into main article space. The main reference provided is an autobiography uploaded to MusicAfrica. The other references were I think available for consideration in the previous AfDs. They show some local coverage but not in my opinion then and now sufficient for WP:MUSICBIO notability so I am bringing this back to AfD once more. AllyD ( talk) 17:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep: This is clearly not a new artist self-promoting. We are so fast in proposing deletion specially for non-English language artists. This one for example has been around for a number of years (since 2006) with 3 albums and 1 EP as solo in addition to being a member of a hip hop group with an album as well. Sources I have added are very varied from a number of articles not just self-published. Incidentally I wasn't aware of the earlier AfDed article. I just intervened as part of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron where I have also intervened in hundreds of other articles as well. werldwayd ( talk) 17:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - sources are good and varifies this singers albums. per WP:GNG. also, simply because the article has been deleted in the past does not mean it should automatically not be re-created at a later date. BabbaQ ( talk) 22:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This article was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted content). I decliend the speedy since this AfD was in progress and had attracted some support for being kept. I have no opinion on the final merits, as i cannot evaluate arabic sources. DES (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing of note has happened since the last deletion. That one should stand. There is no new independent reliable sources with any real depth of coverage about him. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the Keep votes are actually not suggesting how this can better improved aside from its current state and this would be best deleted for now if the necessary improvements cannot be made swiftly. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Abdul Rahman Shaikh

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

Non notable sportsperson Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 11:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - The only sources that I could find for this person were in the context of various crimes committed in India, apparently by someone with the same or similar name. The subject fails WP:BASIC for lack of available sources.- Mr X 11:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The sources which were found by other users were not the right sources. When this article was submitted it had had no references due to which the article failed to meet WP criteria, now the article have right sources and references. [1] [2] Tim Harris84 ( talk) 23:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Abdulrehman bin Abid bin Abdulrehman Al Sheikh". Retrieved 2016-03-28.
  2. ^ "Yamaha's undetermined future and new rivalry". Retrieved 2016-03-28.
The nominator said this person was involved in various crimes in India and also the article had no references before, now the references has been added and all the sources are clear, and what the nominator pointed out was not correct. Tim Harris84 ( talk) 10:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, those source do not appear to be reliable, especially for a WP:BLP.- Mr X 11:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

*Keep - The page is new and needs time to grow, the sources has been added. [1] Sindbadmasr ( talk) 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. apparent consensus hat the source sare insufficient DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Cropio

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

Apparently non notable product. I was only able to find one independent source with substantial discussion. Two or three more like that and I would class this as notable. (there were a number of press releases and comments obviously directly based on PRs. There were also a few passing mentions.) This article was very recently stubbified after a mention at the Teahouse, The last pre-stub version is at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cropio&oldid=710349077 and might be of interest. The only sources removed by the stubbing were to the site of the company that produces this software. DES (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note that there is apparently a variety of wine called "Cropio" which can confuse searches. DES (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unless I'm missing something, two thirds of these sources are just press-releases, or of that flavour. They are therefore not reliable, certainly not independent of the subject, and purely for promotional purposes. (Thanks to DESiegel for pointing out my error, below! As he says, that leaves just one RS. Cheers!). Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
    • Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I believe that the Agricultural Review article now quoted in the Wikipedia article is not based on a Press release. It describes a detailed process of evaluating the service, and seems to be a specialized Consumer Reports-like evaluation. As such, I judge it to be a fully independent source. Other articles at that site seem to evaluate many different high-end agricultural products and services. However, one source is not sufficient, and i could not find any other comparable source. I make this post merely in the interests of accuracy and full disclosure. DES (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Didrik Strömberg

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

fails NHOCKEY Joeykai ( talk) 09:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Buddhist views on sin

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

Every single view on "sin" given shows that there is no sin in Buddhism. The first quote notes that some Buddhists will use the term colloquially, but that Buddhism has no proper sense of the term. This article need not exist. Dharmalion76 ( talk) 08:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep – The first quote does not say that; it says that Buddhists use a different concept of sin than those using it "in the sense of an act of defiance against the authority of a personal god". A quick search on Google Books turns up a wide range of independent coverage of the concept of sin in Buddhism: [26] (particularly relevant given its explicit statement that scholars dispute the "reluctance by some (primarily Western Buddhists) to acknowledge that there is such a thing as sin in Buddhism"), [27], [28], [29]. The article should be reworked to describe the different POVs with the appropriate editorial judgement, but that's a content issue and not a deletion issue. — Nizolan (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Looking at the article history I also note that Dharmalion76 deleted a large chunk of sourced content on rather dubious grounds ( diff). While some of the sources used there were questionable, the translation of the concept gogyakuzai in—for instance—Japanese Buddhism as "five sins" seems well-supported ( [30]) and much of that material should probably be restored. — Nizolan (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Buddhism may not have a particular universal view on sin, but it also doesn't have that type of view on God, yet the article God in Buddhism exists. And there's good reason for that: there are varying views of God among Buddhists. The same thing is true for views of sin among Buddhists, and it's something that numerous notable Buddhists have commented on. -- A guy saved by Jesus ( talk) 19:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Interesting case. There is no "sin" in Buddhism, and yet here we have an article on Buddhist's perspectives on sin. The question raised here is whether or not the article should exist. A Google Books search ( [31]) with 105,000 results on Buddhism and sin. So, to answer the question, yes, this article should exist. Yet, I wonder if a more appropriate title would be Morality in Buddhism? It would encompass more than just Bhuddist views on sin, but it might conflict with Purity in Buddhism. Regardless, that is a matter for a move request—not deletion.-- MarshalN20 Talk 23:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Buddhist morality already exists (as Buddhist ethics), someone just forgot to redirect "morality in Buddhism". "Sin" is a somewhat separate and more specific topic with a range of academic literature discussing it, so I don't think a merge would make sense. — Nizolan (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 13:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Share Compare

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

Non-notable website. Search results are about the phrase or words in a sentence. Greek Legend ( talk) 05:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A quick Google search only pulls up the website and the Wikipedia article in question in terms of any notability. Search terms were "share compare" in quotes. Google News, as per Dialectric and with the same search term, pulls up nothing relevant beyond the phrase, and some results even had something to do with the stock market. I'm afraid as such I cannot hold it up to WP:GNG. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 05:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article on a financial website. Highbeam and Guardian searches turn up nothing, nor does Alexa, and Google just the usual social media listings. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 17:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Umesh Kumari

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is only one WP:RS source. Greek Legend ( talk) 04:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Arkansas State–Louisiana-Monroe football rivalry

Arkansas State–Louisiana-Monroe football rivalry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails GNG Joeykai ( talk) 03:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment Main citation in article is WP:deadlink and not found in archive.org. No citation in either team articles: Arkansas State Red Wolves football#Louisiana.E2.80.93Monroe and Louisiana–Monroe Warhawks football#Arkansas State Red Wolves. Possible prior name of Trail of Tears Classic. Lean to delete. UW Dawgs ( talk) 16:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete That dead link appears to be an opinion piece. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment According to this the two teams don't really consider themselves true rivals, at least from A-State's side. It's a small sample size, but the poll at the end seems to suggest ULL is more of a rival for them. this from 2012 goes into series details but doesn't mention anything about a rivalry. Lizard ( talk) 17:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Paul Chiedozie

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Support consists of listings or brief mentions. Fails to establish notability. reddogsix ( talk) 05:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Josef Allerberger

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

This German World War II sniper may be a fake or at least exaggerating his exploits. The two in-line references are dead and only refer to when he was born and died. A forum [32] states there's no record of him being awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (as does Friedrich Pein, though unsourced). On the other hand, the Daily Mail thinks he's genuine. [33] Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Champion ( talk) ( contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Is this article about a book character or about a real person? There's a military person infobox, but the content is about a book. Suggest deleting as a potential hoax. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. It is sufficient that German Wikipedia does not have an article on him. Potential hoax, indeed; and it is a big problem that "so much of the sourcing ultimately coming back to Wacker"; as noted above. Kierzek ( talk) 20:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The argument that "the content is about a book" is not a rationale for deletion, but one for copyediting. WP:HOAX doesn't apply, since -- regardless of whether he was really to be awarded the Ritterkreuz but this was unconfirmed, or he's fraudulently claimed this -- there appears to be sufficient sourcing (see above) to confirm that he was the second-most-successful confirmed German Sniper of WWII, and had the only such autobiography. The Truppendienst reference for Hetzenauer from de-wiki is "Interview von Hans Widhofner (1976) mit den deutschen Scharfschützen Hetzenauer, Allerberger und Wirnsberger, erschienen in Truppendienst, Ausgabe 1967 Teil I: S. 109–113, Teil II: S. 224–229, Teil III: S. 297–299." While notability arguments could still be fairly made, there appears to be a somewhat stronger case for retention than in 2008 when the de-wiki AFD ran. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 05:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as considerably questionable overall, this is best deleted until a better article is available as this is questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Eddsworld episodes

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

Does not seem notable, as tag states from 2012. TJH2018 talk 01:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Wild takes

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

Non-notable subject; 10-year unsourced WP:PERMASTUB neologism. Prodded after WP:BEFORE, but tag removed because it has "incoming wikilinks" ( edit summary). Mini apolis 00:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A search of books finds no secondary sources that discuss this term in depth, so non-notable neologism. If the term is defined in a parent article or cartooning glossary, a redirect would be fine by me. But until then, delete. czar 16:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barely passes the WP:N guideline. Yamamoto Ichiro ( talk) 19:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

John Hartwell

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

Not a notable figure. KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 05:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep NCAA Division I athletic directors are generally presumed to be notable, and inspection of Hartwell in particular turns up plenty of coverage in reliable third-party sources. He is indeed notable. Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Jweiss11: "Generally presumed"? – List of NCAA Division I athletic directors – Almost none of them are. He just got a job. What's notable about him? KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 06:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
He and other NCAA Division I ADs are notable because of the amount of coverage that NCAA Division I sports, and its athletic directors, receive. Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Look at those articles – they merely mention that he got the job. Lots of "figures" are mentioned in passing, yet are not notable. Until he becomes "a somebody", he's still a nobody. What are you going to do with those 5 articles, all reporting exactly the same thing? Post the Wiki article on him, saying, "John got the job!<ref><ref><ref><ref><ref> ... Besides that, there's nothing to say about him, because there's nothing worth noting.? Seriously? 5 references for a single thing worth saying about him? It makes sense to delete it for now, and if he ever does anything noteworthy, then recreate it. :-\ KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Knowledgebattle, I don't think you're supposed to log a delete vote like this on an AfD that you opened. We know you want this article deleted. That's why you nominated it. As for the subject of Hartwell's notability, when articles in five notable newspapers are written about someone simply getting a job, then there's probably something notable about simply getting that job. Athletic directors like Hartwell are also typically covered in articles about the hiring and firing of various coaches that work for them, and the development of athletic facilities at the colleges where they work. All of this might seem trivial to you, but it is notable where it is covered by notable and realiable third-party sources. Your pejorative and factually erroneous characterization of Hartwell as "just some school football coach" on your user page does not speak well for your objectivity here. Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
This is yet another feature story, continued onto a second page ( here), reporting in depth on Hartwell. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Cbl62: Oh! Well great! Out of the abyss, someone has managed to scrounge something up about him. If any of it's noteworthy, then throw it in there! I'll even read it! KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 16:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Excellent! Always nice to see people keeping an open mind. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:ATH makes no mention of athletic directors being automatically notable. Notability therefore defaults to WP:ANYBIO, which does not appear to support notability. After being named athletic director there was some ephemeral media attention, though there appears little coverage of him aside from that in reliable sources. In addition, this person has not been nominated or won a well-known and significant award or honor, and has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field, per WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:ATH makes no mention of athletic directors being automatically notable. Notability therefore defaults to WP:ANYBIO, which does not appear to support notability. After being named athletic director there was some ephemeral media attention, though there appears little coverage of him aside from that in reliable sources. In addition, this person has not been nominated or won a well-known and significant award or honor, and has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field, per WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Magnolia677: I struck the above which is a duplicate vote by the same editor. Each editor is entitled to vote only once. ;) Cbl62 ( talk) 22:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Onel5969: I agree with you in part, i.e., there is no SNG holding that athletic directors are "inherently" notable. Accordingly, athletic directors should be assessed under GNG. In this case, the coverage is significant and plainly surpasses WP:ROUTINE, which might consist of simple hiring announcements in a "Sports Transactions" column or a brief article announcing a hiring or resignation. What we have here are more detailed stories about Hartwell. The feature story I referenced above ( here and here) is the antithesis of "routine" coverage. Together with the sources cited by Ejgreen above, Hartwell is a GNG pass IMO. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I find it incredible that people should think there is no notability inherent in this very major position--at least in a major athletic university. I am not greatly interested in college athletics , but from even a casual reading of the news it is obvious that there individuals play a central role in their campuses. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 did not place much weight on Matt14451's argument, which seemed to be contradictory. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Overruled (film)

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

I can find very little on this documentary film. I can find a lot more on a documentary film of the same name, dealing with government interference with Christian parenting. But not about young Afghan refugees in Iran. No sources given. PROD declined. Safiel ( talk) 03:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Do not delete Matt14451 ( talk) 07:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Matt14451: what is your rationale? GabeIglesia ( talk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Article is way too brief, contains a rhetorical question which is not suitable for Wikipedia. Not lone or note worthy enough for Wikipedia. Matt14451 ( talk) 15:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Contradictions of contradictions... Kingoflettuce ( talk) 09:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as sadly the article does not offer enough content for a proper search. Without being able to search for director or actors or screenings, I am unable to see if WP:NF is met or not. 08:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Schmidt, Michael Q.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Dave Mikes

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

News anchor with questionable notability. I had to remove the refs as the only 2 were-a image and the front page of a news wesbsite with nothing about him. As you can guess it is tough trying to look up someone named Dave Mikes also. Wgolf ( talk) 01:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The article is almost ten years old (if it wasn't, a sticky prod would have been a good option) and nobody has attempted to add any real sources in all that time. I tried googling "Dave Mikes" + "news anchor" (as the nominator suggests, googling just "Dave Mikes" isn't realistic) and all I found was this article and Wikipedia mirrors. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC). reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete To be fair this article is only eight and a half years old, but that does not excuse it having no sources. I don't mean no reliable sources, I mean no sources of any kind, absolutely nothing. However unless we found a lot of indepth reliable coverage this person is just one of thousands of local TV news anchors. Local TV and radio news anchors can infact be notable for that, but we need sources to prove that they are viewed as major and impactful, which we have none of here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as clearly nothing for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Obvious candidate for deletion with no sources in existance. Prhartcom ( talk) 13:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Esperanto. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Criticism of Esperanto

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

It doesn't make sense to split the Esperanto article into an 'Esperanto' and an 'Esperanto is bad' article. "The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article are size and content relevance. If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope, then a split may be considered or proposed. Consideration must be given to size, notability, and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split." I don't see it given in this situation; the size and notability aren't relevant.

To create a whole article about 'criticism' is in fact against the neutrality issues. Wikipedia policy is against 'criticism' as sections (I bet articles too?); those have to be included in the article, instead of being separated, else the article will lack neutrality: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias."

As far as I can see, the sources aren't scholarly. " Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Momo Monitor ( talk) 01:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Probably it's a good idea to delete this article and, if some people think this would be useful, to include some content in Esperanto.
The title of the article is "Criticism of Esperanto"; this is not very specific, as the word "Esperanto" is used a) for the language and b) sometimes for the project to introduce that language as an international language. In fact the first version of the article has the subtitle "Arguments against Esperanto as international language" (to be generally introduced) - it is not "Arguments against Esperanto as a language" (of an international community of speakers who freely decided to use the language). The current title may be misunderstood as being a criticism of Esperanto as a mere language - this is not the goal of the wikipedia. -- Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven ( talk) 12:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. ^ "Abdulrehman bin Abid bin Abdulrehman Al Sheikh". Retrieved 2016-03-28.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_April_4&oldid=1142223689"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE