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

The result was procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. ( non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Fam Nice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Two links to forums, and all the rest to YouTube. Internet searches show a few mp3s floating around, but absolutely nothing in the way of reliable sources. See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Axe_(battle_rapper). Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete No reliable, secondary, independent sources. Mini apolis 00:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete both. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Axe (battle rapper) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fam Nice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Zero third-party reliable sources to indicate how this rapper meets WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG guidelines; all sources appear to be primary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Yep. Of the 30 sources here, 23 of them are his own self-published videos on his own YouTube channel — and the remaining seven, right across the board, are either non-notable blogs or user-generated content sites like discussion forums and Urban Dictionary. These are not the kind of sources it takes to get a person into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COMPOSER, WP:ARTIST or the GNG. Mini apolis 00:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete both, since the discussions have been bundled. Neither subject meets the relevant notability guidelines ( yet). Mini apolis 14:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• These people are definitely a notable part of hip hip history whose work greatly contributed to the rise of the hip hop and battle rap culture. If you actually read the articles you would see that. I firmly believe Axe (battle rapper) and Fam Nice (co-founders of the widely popular battle league culture) whose articles are up for deletion clearly meet the guidelines of notable people under "Creative professionals" in that the people are "regarded as an important figure" in battle rap and they are "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". Without them there would be no battle leagues. Well known music artists such as Mickey Factz, Novel, and dozens of other hip hop artists who these two men help launch their careers know who they are, so they will always be a part of hip hop history even if they aren't a part of Wikipedian history. Good luck in your manhunt and I hope that some of you find something to do in your spare time other than destroy the credibility of music pioneers. Thanks for your time. Please see: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals for further information on notability guidelines. User:MusicHistory101

• Perhaps they could be mentioned in the main article then, although again you would need some reliable sources which neither article has at the moment. Laura Jamieson (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete all. Bearcat pretty much hit the nail on the head, and I really don't think MusicHistory101 quite understands how WP:MUSICBIO works. I have also taken the liberty of bundling the AfD for the related article Fam Nice. (SN: "battle rapper" really don't qualify under WP:PARENDIS). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete all - no secondary sources required for bio (as I noted at Axe (battle rapper) talk page). These pages are all the creation and primarily edited by one person using three accounts MusicHistory101/73.35.68.130/Topbookclub (per my talk page activity [1]) and the Axe has been through AfD before [2]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If that's the case, should an WP:SPI be filed as well? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I filed an ANI on this [3] because so much was going on, sock, un-civil, disruptive editing. I for one will leave it up to the admins there as to what they want to pursue although I note the editor in question is now going after an editor who respond to the ANI and this AfD [4]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 01:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I would note before being blocked for WP:SOCK Topbookclub copied these articles off to his sandbox [5], now a pretty massive WP:USERBIO. In this sandbox he declares himself to be Axe the battle rapper (not sure if COI pertains the the WP:N problems noted here). Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC) No longer exists so my statement can't be verified, deleted by admins for "Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host". Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 17:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete both No reliable secondary sources, nothing even close to GNG (especially Fam, who is sourced to YouTube and forums), and nothing I can find either - and I have tried. Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete both - There is no reliable sources. Most are attempted to source Youtube. I agree with Bearcat. Reb1981 ( talk) 04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Linguakat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Paucity of comprehensive independent secondary sources to establish notability and satisfy WP:MUSIC  Wisdom89 ^{♦ talk} 22:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Wisdom89 ^{♦ talk} 22:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Wisdom89 ^{♦ talk} 22:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Questionably solidly notable as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per BLP1E. -- QEDK ( T 📖 C) 11:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

  Because the article makes quite a few assertions of the artist's influence, which I extended to importance.  Wisdom89 ^{♦ talk} 14:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

  Covered by one third-party source (two links are dead). I'm sorry for skimming over it. Falls under BLP1E. -- QEDK ( T 📖 C) 15:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination - one of several promotional articles by same creator on non-notable new-musicians, evidently created by an employee of their label, Owia Music. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 17:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. MelanieN ( talk) 03:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Bionade-Biedermeier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

An article based on one single newspaper article from 2007 about a neologism in German isn't notable. -- User:NewJohn 21:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. For the record, there was imho no real 'first nom' but a formal error with this discussion. The neologism has spread and is as well mentioned in English speaking sources, as well several years after it was coined. Just before the AfD, the article has been cut down significantly recently, various English speaking (including scholalry) sources being erased. That included e.g. a listicle with cartoons from Ulli Lust published both in Süddeutsche and the Guardian, organic bourgeoisie = Bionade-Biedermeier. Twark, Hildebrandt (2015-05-15) 'Envisioning Social Justice in Contemporary German Culture' with a complete Chapter titled 'Social Consciousness in the Bionade-Biedermeier' was deleted as well. Then the AfD came. Sorta foul game, e.g. the important Shell Jugendstude has been quoted for 'Generation Biedermeier', not for 'Bionade Biedemeier', no reason to delete that, since it gives the wider picture. The responsible IP has a background in a sort of revenge from the deWP. There was one Czech source, which discussed a Gentrification topic in Berlin, I had done a google translate and surely it is about the topic but I am OK with User:NewJohn deleting it. I restored to the sourced version. Polentarion Talk 01:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

the term "Bionade-Biedermeier" is really just present in the title of one chapter in "Envisioning Social Justice in Contemporary German Culture" - the book itself makes indeed no mention of the term (apart from the title of said chapter) -- ChristopheT ( talk) 03:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

You are right, but thats no weakness. Its far from a widespread Loanword but it gained some impact in English / American sources describing Berlin athmosphere without need for explanation. Polentarion Talk 04:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC) PS.: I adapted the wording and refered to the chapter title explicitely. reply

It is highly manipulative to cite the Shell-study the way it is cited here. Each year a new Shell-study is being published. I doubt it makes any sense at all to pick out the version of that particular year. And the current Shell-study points out that the youth is politically interested in Germany. -- NewJohn ( talk) 07:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Reading sentences like "Biedermeier refers to parallels between the historical Biedermeier and the German present. Neo-Biedermeier has been used before to describe the current young generation in Germany" it seems to me the article shall bash some part of society or more concretely "the youth". I cannot see that the young generation desereves that and as said the current Shell-study proves the author of that sentence to be wrong. [6] -- NewJohn ( talk) 07:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep The word "Bionade-Biedermeier" is used as a description of a sociocultural development. It's not based on a single newspaper article. the product Bionade became a central image for a certain neo bourgeois in the German society. Something between Bobo (Bohemian Bourgeois), Hipster and ecological aware middleclass citizen. The sources in the article reflect on the broader reception and its function as a cultural coordination point. -- Jensbest ( talk) 02:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

A google news search for Bionade Biedermeier delivers just 81 results. [7]. I wouldnt equate Biedermeier with Bourgeois and I wouldnt equate Biedermeier with Bohemian either. In the article it reads "not the Proletariat, but the Bohème became the ruling class". Does that make any sense to anyone? -- NewJohn ( talk) 08:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete does not achieve notability - seems to be used by a specific set of Editorialists of a specific newspaper within a specific time frame around the publication of the Editorial in 2007. -- ChristopheT ( talk) 03:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

In the German article about Bio-B. most content has been erased because sources have been manipulated. I looked into the source according to which Claudia Roth supposedly "sees problematic tendencies in the social phenomenon for their own party and clientele." The source is a short text by some undisclosed author about an event at Munich Re (!). Roth apparently took part in the event. The statement about the Bio-Biedermeier is however from the unknown author and not from Roth. Seems like we are dealing here with the same sort of manipulations others dealt with before in the German article. -- NewJohn ( talk) 07:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The topic of the article was highly controversial in the German community, but it stood AfD and challenge of an AfD. Here it went through standard review and DYK, I had some old hands looking on it. Over there, no kidding, lotta hate speech and active bullying over the topic in deWP. Point is, as an old hand said in one discussion, important parts of the deWP community are part of the Bionade Biedermeier, but don't want to be called like that. The IP, which tried to delete have of the content, flamed me as having written this very article for mobbing purposes. I quote the original text "Diese Überforderung führt dazu, dass sich viele Menschen in eine Art „Bionade-Biedermeier“ zurückziehen und ein ökologisch korrektes Leben ohne großes bürgerschaftliches Engagement führen. „Wo ist der Impuls, etwas zu ändern, wo der Protest, wo der Wille, sich einzumischen“, beklagte die Bundestags-Vizepräsidentin und Mitglied der Fraktion von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (Cladia Roth)." Point is, the author tells about the Bionade-Biedermeier and cocooning tendencies. Then - next sentence - Roth is quoted with an statement about a lack of political interest. Trittin refered to the same issue in a book, vocal reference to Bionadebiedermeier. The article currently goes Green party officials like Jürgen Trittin and Claudia Roth see problematic tendencies in the social phenomenon for their own party and clientel. I see that as an appropriate way to cover both valid sources. Polentarion Talk 08:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Polentarion Talk 08:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Being able to read the discussion in the German wikipedia and your reaction here, quite frankly, you are not very open to deal with criticism - to say the least. There are hundreds of thousands of such events each year by companies and it's not an interest in science that attracts the audience. Citing an undisclosed author who writes a short piece about such an event is way beyond standards. Plus please do not deny that Roth doesnt use the term and in the article it says the opposite. -- NewJohn ( talk) 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The term is refered to in an report an Munich Re conferences with German political leaders. Roth has been quoted about the cocooning tendency, after being confronted with the BionadeBiedermeier. You erased a valid source, instead of improving tha actual text. Your comment on the CDU strategy paper shows a possible political bias. You made some aggressive remarks during your edits. I gave you a civility warning on your User page. Polentarion Talk 09:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The text is lightyears away from being a "report"! These are exactly the sort of manipulations I am referring to. And it's also kind of an attempt to manipulate when you are trying to "warn" me of something on my user disk. User_talk:NewJohn#Warning -- NewJohn ( talk) 09:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but things go that way here. You started here with claiming "only one newspaper', after a friendly IP prepared the way to claim that. By deleting half of the article. You now deleted a report from Munich Re Foundation about its dialogue forum with Roth, a highstanding member of the Greens on federal level, Green Lord Mayor of Munich candidate Nallinger and Finkbeiner from Club of Rome and cofounder of the Global_Marshall_Plan_Initiative in Germany. Retreat into the Biedermeier in general was a section title, Bionade-B explicitely refered to as a problem. Its a sort of WP:I don't like it issue policy wise, and youre the one that has a problem with the topic. Thats far from being accurate, Sir. The civility warning is one of the steps before we involve sysops here. I gave you an informal one first. Polentarion Talk 09:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

There is really only one article in one newspaper which really makes the term Bionade-Biedermeier the headline and center of a story. All other sources may use the term somewhere but it's not central to any of the sources. In addition to this most sources are just evaluated selectively regarding their content. The author surely didnt read most of the sources from beginning to end. Instead he used everything he could find online and read only the paragraph around the buzz word. Most sources are highly doubtful which makes the article here an essay aboout a not notable term. -- NewJohn ( talk) 10:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

We got various entries already here with the term in the title. You used a sorta selective google news search, 88 doesn't equal one. But I am thankful for your interest, I wasn't aware yet that Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg had transmitted a lecture about Jörg Albrechts doctorate (Title: Vom Kohlrabi-Apostel zum Bionade-Biedermeier) in 2015. Polentarion Talk 11:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I think we do not need to repeat the soap drama we had on the same subject in WP:DE - my point is notability - if Bionade-Biedermaier was indeed a neologism on his way into mainstream German language - we would have seen some entries since 2007 (Duden ect.) like let's say for 'Warmduscher'. That is clearly not the case. My point being notability - nothing else - so please do not highjack my comment for a discussion that has nothing to do with my point. Thank you! -- ChristopheT ( talk) 11:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

User:ChristophThomas: Hope so, its been a fierce mess. Here you went on the talk page, I will do also, think we can do some fixes with superfluent entries. Albrechts doctorate is more of relevance. Its quite true that the catchy term often appears in head-lines, but not yet in the Duden. My point is that the thresholds for entries containing brand names in the Duden are higher. Polentarion Talk 11:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I looked at the arguments above and then reexamined the sourcing of the article. Numerous reliable sources are cited in which this tag phrase is used in reference to a certain group or trend. Whether the group was ever representative of German youth, whether the name is fair, and whether the trend is still current are all unimportant: the article deals with something that has been written about in reliable sources and demonstrates that this is the generally used term for it. (Yes, at least one source simply uses "Biedermeier", but most use "Bionade-Biedermeier".) It thus clears the bar for notability, and even those sources in which the term is only used once contribute to clarifying how it's used, as well as documenting its use, and should not be stripped out. Yngvadottir ( talk) 11:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Sure you looked at the arguments above and reexamined...? Or did you just do a favour to a buddy who asked kindly for it User_talk:Yngvadottir#Differences_between_different_WPs "The empire strikes back on Bionade-Biedermeier....Polentarion" -- 87.78.133.28 ( talk) 17:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi IP, thanks for assuming good faith; yes, I looked for myself, and also read the arguments above, before writing my argument. Yngvadottir ( talk) 02:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete The whole thing doesnt go beyond an essay. All cited books are popular books too often politically biased. The story presented here is a fantasy of its writer. Man things from different sources which are not really related are being sampled together.-- 89.204.155.180 ( talk) 11:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Just for the record: I changed the false claim in the article that puts the outcome of the Shell-study from 2010 in context of the recent study. The recent study finds that the youth is politically interested. The author deleted that bit. And then I looked into the WP:de article on Jörg Albrecht. Here he is somehow presented as an authority in the field of analysing societal trends such as Bio-B. In reality he writes prose, theater pieces and novels. This is another example of how misleading the article is to its readers. It's not enough to look at the sources and say: Hey, the word appears in there! You have to look into the sources and then you see that this article doesnt go beyond an essay representing someones private oppinion about the phenomenon Bio-B. -- NewJohn ( talk) 13:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Some more on the same: The author of the article added a source today which seems to state that Albrecht is lecturing on Bio-B. If you actually click on the source [8] (please do so!) one finds out that there is a text. The text doesnt state however if Albrecht will in fact give a lecture or another form of presentation. The text also doesnt state in which event that happend or shall happen (no date either). That is just another perfect example of manipulating the reader by using random "sources". -- NewJohn ( talk) 13:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

See talk page. Wikipedia:Waste of Time. Polentarion Talk 23:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

For the record: First (see Strohmaier 2014), the term itself has been quoted and used often since it was coined in 2007. Second I made sure to include definitions of the term beyound and after Sußebach. ChristopheT made a valid point about the Duden. Strohmaier 2014 confirms that the term was then already integrated in the Duden Szenesprachenwiki, a sort of urban dictionary in German. The Szenesprachenwiki is currently offline. Duden has produced a printed dictionary based on selected entries. No chance to check for the term online. But I don't think that is a barrier for noteabilty. Polentarion Talk 01:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

An online wiki - which is offline - as a source of its importance! Are you serious?? -- 87.79.175.34 ( talk) 08:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

We should leave the limo-biedermeier for this other wiki then - as the wikipedia is no dictionary. The article here doesnt go beyond an article for a dictionary with a lengthy discription of who used the term at some point somewhere anyways. -- 87.79.175.34 ( talk) 08:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The "background" of the word is according to the article here: A doctorate project of someone, a citation for internal use which got in the hands of the press, and a documentary which didn't use the terms - but according to the author here describes the phenomenon. That is not enough. -- 87.79.175.34 ( talk) 10:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I am serious. Polentarion Talk 14:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC) To quote User:Weissbier deWP Soap opera, AfD revision I believe that the main problem is the (deWP) High Society being part of Bionade-Biedermeier, wearing ugly marinières and getting licked with overpriced Manufactum gadgets. Je suis Tiger! WB! 11:48, 6. Nov. 2015 (CET) reply

You state here that you're motivation for writing this "article" is hatred. You don't care whether you inform the reader or whether you use your source in an appropiate way. That was the reason why your account was taken offline for a month in de:wp [9] -- 87.79.175.34 ( talk) 17:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Cologne IP, I have done no such statement. That's beyound any rule here, against a member of good standing of this very project. Noteability of this entry is based on valid sourcing. The AfD is not warranted by facts but seems as an act of revenge. Still the soap opera overthere. Polentarion Talk 18:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The article gives very lear evidence that this is part of contemporary German culture. I do not think thearticle would have been even questioned if it covered an English -speaking country, and the English WP is supposed to cover all the world equally. The article here is much more extensive than the deWP article, but perhaps a much larger explanation of the cutluralbackgroundis needed for English readers. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep also as this seems convincing enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Nicely sourced and interesting article about a notable German neologism. Passes GNG. Carrite ( talk) 16:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  16:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Lock Down (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Single has not even been released, and can not possibly have made an impact on any country's chart list. Per WP:TOOSOON and fails notability for a single release Scr★pIron ^IV 21:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The single hasn't been released yet, you just contradicted yourself User:ScrapIronIV. The information on this page stays, when the single is released, more information can be added: i.e reception info and charts. Thank you User:JuneGloom07 for understanding and being patient on more information and sources to be added when it is released. However a redirect is unnecessary. The page needs it's official art cover though! END OF DISCUSSION! - Jozza-7 — Jozza-7 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  21:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect. I think a redirect to the main Stooshe article would be better than outright deletion. I agree that the article doesn't pass notability just yet, but the single is released next week, so hopefully more sources will become available. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Most non notable songs get redirected to the album however in this case there is no album so in this case it seems sensible to just delete.... – Davey2010 ^Talk 00:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - Right now I think it is too soon to decide. I firmly believe that it could be one worth waiting on. They have had high charting singles in the past. The single has just been released and they just did a televised live performance on a high profile TV Show Celebrity Big Brother - so it is more than likely to chart. I'd say wait it out until Friday. Me and another editor have done work on Stooshe singles in the past, so I think I will ask her to improve the article with me - if it passes GNG that is a positive sign. Rain the 1 01:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment It doesn't appear to have charted in the UK. [10] -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Because this AFD has been listed multiple times, and because the song is more or less recent, it's now gained traction in media. Keep per WP:NALBUMS, as now the song has appeared in multiple non-trivial published news reports like this, this, this, this, this and in fact many more. Again, as per WP:NALBUMS, the song is now on rotation on multiple major radio channels, like BBC, [11] [12] [13] [14] Black Country Radio, The Bay 96.9, KCC Live, Coast 1079, UK Air Play, European Hit Radio, YLE Areena Radio and many others. The song has charted on Hearst UK Entertainment's "ten of the hottest tracks of last week" Digital Spy list at #9. Lockdown also became the Record of the Week on Unity Radio for the week starting 16 November 2015, which led to a detailed on air interview about Lockdown with Stooshe. [15] And of course the song has been performed live in BBC Christmas Extravaganza, The Bay Stage for the Barrow Christmas Light Switch-On hosted by Danny & Darren and Celebrity Big Brother, which as per WP:NALBUMS again qualifies this song as having been performed in a major television or radio show. Xender Lourdes ( talk) 04:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Venu Nagavally -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Ayitham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The film can very well be notable, but the article does not cite a single reliable source Ymblanter ( talk) 18:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 12:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 12:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• reopened for further discussion, by request. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as I asked this to be reopened because I missed commenting. My searches basically found nothing better than one Indian encyclopedia at Books. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per WP:ATD to Venu Nagavally, the one place where readers may at least learn of the film's director even if this pre-internet film lacks English sourcing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• I am also open to redirecting to the article suggested above instead of deleting. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Venu Nagavally. Makes sense. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus following relisting. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Bobby Chaumont (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai ( talk) 02:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete While top-20 in career goals and top-30 in career points for EIHL, you need top-10 to meet the SNG. I did a Google search and I didn't find anything and most of what I did find was stat profiles or passing mentions in game write-ups. Does not appear to meet GNG. RonSigPi ( talk) 04:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, reached a lower-level league per WP:NHOCKEY/LA, and hasn't distinguished himself in the league. PK T(alk) 16:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not comply with WP:GNG BT Harrison ( talk) 04:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus after a relisting DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

MFX Broker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Forex broker with no references in reliable sources. Some trade websites, but nothing that can be considered reliable. There are also press releases which do not count for notability. A web search found nothing in-depth to help. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 ( talk) 06:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Also looks like it was created by a sock. Should still be judged on its notability, but wanted to point it out in case another sock shows up on the AfD. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as the current article is not convincing and the sourcing is also not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete or draftify, looks like promo advertising Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. postdlf ( talk) 16:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

List of songs recorded by Brand New (  | 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 Listcruft. Details in this article replicate info already provided through articles regarding Brand New's singles and albums. Cubbie15fan ( talk) 20:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• KEEP Yeah, some of the information is on other pages, but it's still a useful resource. It also details unreleased material which isn't in any other articles +++Plenty of other artists have these lists without any sort of information/references. List of songs recorded by My Chemical Romance, List of songs recorded by Stereophonics, List of songs recorded by MGMT, List of songs recorded by Radiohead, List of songs recorded by Green Day, List of songs recorded by Foo Fighters, List of songs recorded by Arctic Monkeys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarsy ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 January 2016‎ (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Its hard to make a call on these sorts of "List of all songs by X artists" lists because I still don't believe anyone's agreed on any criteria on when its appropriate for an artist to have one, but I believe there's a loose agreement that these sorts of articles are more appropriate for situations like List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson or List of songs recorded by the Beatles, where they have a massive collection of notable songs, and less appropriate for bands like Brand New, which have a much smaller collection of songs, and only a handful of them being notable enough to have their own article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. A clear consensus to keep following relisting and the withdrawal of the nomination and switch to keep. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Rok Studios (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. The sources provided are unreliable and majority of the sources are self-published material with no credible editorial oversight. Wikic¤l¤gy ^{t@lk to M£} 08:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn to Keep per MichaelQSchmidt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicology ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 26 January 2016‎ reply

Thank you for your withdrawing and supporting a "keep". Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy ^{t@lk to M£} 08:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy ^{t@lk to M£} 08:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy ^{t@lk to M£} 08:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now at best and draft and userfy if needed as none of this suggests a better solidly notable article. Notifying 1st AfDers Jamie Tubers, Versace1608, MichaelQSchmidt and VMS Mosaic. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep (upping from my "weak keep" at the last AFD) as topic is getting more coverage of late in acceptable sources, not less. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - same as before. Coverage appears to be expanding enough to meet WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 06:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt passes WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 02:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. MelanieN ( talk) 03:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Bionade-Biedermeier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

An article based on one single newspaper article from 2007 about a neologism in German isn't notable. -- User:NewJohn 21:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. For the record, there was imho no real 'first nom' but a formal error with this discussion. The neologism has spread and is as well mentioned in English speaking sources, as well several years after it was coined. Just before the AfD, the article has been cut down significantly recently, various English speaking (including scholalry) sources being erased. That included e.g. a listicle with cartoons from Ulli Lust published both in Süddeutsche and the Guardian, organic bourgeoisie = Bionade-Biedermeier. Twark, Hildebrandt (2015-05-15) 'Envisioning Social Justice in Contemporary German Culture' with a complete Chapter titled 'Social Consciousness in the Bionade-Biedermeier' was deleted as well. Then the AfD came. Sorta foul game, e.g. the important Shell Jugendstude has been quoted for 'Generation Biedermeier', not for 'Bionade Biedemeier', no reason to delete that, since it gives the wider picture. The responsible IP has a background in a sort of revenge from the deWP. There was one Czech source, which discussed a Gentrification topic in Berlin, I had done a google translate and surely it is about the topic but I am OK with User:NewJohn deleting it. I restored to the sourced version. Polentarion Talk 01:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

the term "Bionade-Biedermeier" is really just present in the title of one chapter in "Envisioning Social Justice in Contemporary German Culture" - the book itself makes indeed no mention of the term (apart from the title of said chapter) -- ChristopheT ( talk) 03:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

You are right, but thats no weakness. Its far from a widespread Loanword but it gained some impact in English / American sources describing Berlin athmosphere without need for explanation. Polentarion Talk 04:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC) PS.: I adapted the wording and refered to the chapter title explicitely. reply

It is highly manipulative to cite the Shell-study the way it is cited here. Each year a new Shell-study is being published. I doubt it makes any sense at all to pick out the version of that particular year. And the current Shell-study points out that the youth is politically interested in Germany. -- NewJohn ( talk) 07:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Reading sentences like "Biedermeier refers to parallels between the historical Biedermeier and the German present. Neo-Biedermeier has been used before to describe the current young generation in Germany" it seems to me the article shall bash some part of society or more concretely "the youth". I cannot see that the young generation desereves that and as said the current Shell-study proves the author of that sentence to be wrong. [16] -- NewJohn ( talk) 07:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep The word "Bionade-Biedermeier" is used as a description of a sociocultural development. It's not based on a single newspaper article. the product Bionade became a central image for a certain neo bourgeois in the German society. Something between Bobo (Bohemian Bourgeois), Hipster and ecological aware middleclass citizen. The sources in the article reflect on the broader reception and its function as a cultural coordination point. -- Jensbest ( talk) 02:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

A google news search for Bionade Biedermeier delivers just 81 results. [17]. I wouldnt equate Biedermeier with Bourgeois and I wouldnt equate Biedermeier with Bohemian either. In the article it reads "not the Proletariat, but the Bohème became the ruling class". Does that make any sense to anyone? -- NewJohn ( talk) 08:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete does not achieve notability - seems to be used by a specific set of Editorialists of a specific newspaper within a specific time frame around the publication of the Editorial in 2007. -- ChristopheT ( talk) 03:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

In the German article about Bio-B. most content has been erased because sources have been manipulated. I looked into the source according to which Claudia Roth supposedly "sees problematic tendencies in the social phenomenon for their own party and clientele." The source is a short text by some undisclosed author about an event at Munich Re (!). Roth apparently took part in the event. The statement about the Bio-Biedermeier is however from the unknown author and not from Roth. Seems like we are dealing here with the same sort of manipulations others dealt with before in the German article. -- NewJohn ( talk) 07:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The topic of the article was highly controversial in the German community, but it stood AfD and challenge of an AfD. Here it went through standard review and DYK, I had some old hands looking on it. Over there, no kidding, lotta hate speech and active bullying over the topic in deWP. Point is, as an old hand said in one discussion, important parts of the deWP community are part of the Bionade Biedermeier, but don't want to be called like that. The IP, which tried to delete have of the content, flamed me as having written this very article for mobbing purposes. I quote the original text "Diese Überforderung führt dazu, dass sich viele Menschen in eine Art „Bionade-Biedermeier“ zurückziehen und ein ökologisch korrektes Leben ohne großes bürgerschaftliches Engagement führen. „Wo ist der Impuls, etwas zu ändern, wo der Protest, wo der Wille, sich einzumischen“, beklagte die Bundestags-Vizepräsidentin und Mitglied der Fraktion von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (Cladia Roth)." Point is, the author tells about the Bionade-Biedermeier and cocooning tendencies. Then - next sentence - Roth is quoted with an statement about a lack of political interest. Trittin refered to the same issue in a book, vocal reference to Bionadebiedermeier. The article currently goes Green party officials like Jürgen Trittin and Claudia Roth see problematic tendencies in the social phenomenon for their own party and clientel. I see that as an appropriate way to cover both valid sources. Polentarion Talk 08:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Polentarion Talk 08:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Being able to read the discussion in the German wikipedia and your reaction here, quite frankly, you are not very open to deal with criticism - to say the least. There are hundreds of thousands of such events each year by companies and it's not an interest in science that attracts the audience. Citing an undisclosed author who writes a short piece about such an event is way beyond standards. Plus please do not deny that Roth doesnt use the term and in the article it says the opposite. -- NewJohn ( talk) 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The term is refered to in an report an Munich Re conferences with German political leaders. Roth has been quoted about the cocooning tendency, after being confronted with the BionadeBiedermeier. You erased a valid source, instead of improving tha actual text. Your comment on the CDU strategy paper shows a possible political bias. You made some aggressive remarks during your edits. I gave you a civility warning on your User page. Polentarion Talk 09:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The text is lightyears away from being a "report"! These are exactly the sort of manipulations I am referring to. And it's also kind of an attempt to manipulate when you are trying to "warn" me of something on my user disk. User_talk:NewJohn#Warning -- NewJohn ( talk) 09:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but things go that way here. You started here with claiming "only one newspaper', after a friendly IP prepared the way to claim that. By deleting half of the article. You now deleted a report from Munich Re Foundation about its dialogue forum with Roth, a highstanding member of the Greens on federal level, Green Lord Mayor of Munich candidate Nallinger and Finkbeiner from Club of Rome and cofounder of the Global_Marshall_Plan_Initiative in Germany. Retreat into the Biedermeier in general was a section title, Bionade-B explicitely refered to as a problem. Its a sort of WP:I don't like it issue policy wise, and youre the one that has a problem with the topic. Thats far from being accurate, Sir. The civility warning is one of the steps before we involve sysops here. I gave you an informal one first. Polentarion Talk 09:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

There is really only one article in one newspaper which really makes the term Bionade-Biedermeier the headline and center of a story. All other sources may use the term somewhere but it's not central to any of the sources. In addition to this most sources are just evaluated selectively regarding their content. The author surely didnt read most of the sources from beginning to end. Instead he used everything he could find online and read only the paragraph around the buzz word. Most sources are highly doubtful which makes the article here an essay aboout a not notable term. -- NewJohn ( talk) 10:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

We got various entries already here with the term in the title. You used a sorta selective google news search, 88 doesn't equal one. But I am thankful for your interest, I wasn't aware yet that Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg had transmitted a lecture about Jörg Albrechts doctorate (Title: Vom Kohlrabi-Apostel zum Bionade-Biedermeier) in 2015. Polentarion Talk 11:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I think we do not need to repeat the soap drama we had on the same subject in WP:DE - my point is notability - if Bionade-Biedermaier was indeed a neologism on his way into mainstream German language - we would have seen some entries since 2007 (Duden ect.) like let's say for 'Warmduscher'. That is clearly not the case. My point being notability - nothing else - so please do not highjack my comment for a discussion that has nothing to do with my point. Thank you! -- ChristopheT ( talk) 11:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

User:ChristophThomas: Hope so, its been a fierce mess. Here you went on the talk page, I will do also, think we can do some fixes with superfluent entries. Albrechts doctorate is more of relevance. Its quite true that the catchy term often appears in head-lines, but not yet in the Duden. My point is that the thresholds for entries containing brand names in the Duden are higher. Polentarion Talk 11:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I looked at the arguments above and then reexamined the sourcing of the article. Numerous reliable sources are cited in which this tag phrase is used in reference to a certain group or trend. Whether the group was ever representative of German youth, whether the name is fair, and whether the trend is still current are all unimportant: the article deals with something that has been written about in reliable sources and demonstrates that this is the generally used term for it. (Yes, at least one source simply uses "Biedermeier", but most use "Bionade-Biedermeier".) It thus clears the bar for notability, and even those sources in which the term is only used once contribute to clarifying how it's used, as well as documenting its use, and should not be stripped out. Yngvadottir ( talk) 11:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Sure you looked at the arguments above and reexamined...? Or did you just do a favour to a buddy who asked kindly for it User_talk:Yngvadottir#Differences_between_different_WPs "The empire strikes back on Bionade-Biedermeier....Polentarion" -- 87.78.133.28 ( talk) 17:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi IP, thanks for assuming good faith; yes, I looked for myself, and also read the arguments above, before writing my argument. Yngvadottir ( talk) 02:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete The whole thing doesnt go beyond an essay. All cited books are popular books too often politically biased. The story presented here is a fantasy of its writer. Man things from different sources which are not really related are being sampled together.-- 89.204.155.180 ( talk) 11:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Just for the record: I changed the false claim in the article that puts the outcome of the Shell-study from 2010 in context of the recent study. The recent study finds that the youth is politically interested. The author deleted that bit. And then I looked into the WP:de article on Jörg Albrecht. Here he is somehow presented as an authority in the field of analysing societal trends such as Bio-B. In reality he writes prose, theater pieces and novels. This is another example of how misleading the article is to its readers. It's not enough to look at the sources and say: Hey, the word appears in there! You have to look into the sources and then you see that this article doesnt go beyond an essay representing someones private oppinion about the phenomenon Bio-B. -- NewJohn ( talk) 13:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Some more on the same: The author of the article added a source today which seems to state that Albrecht is lecturing on Bio-B. If you actually click on the source [18] (please do so!) one finds out that there is a text. The text doesnt state however if Albrecht will in fact give a lecture or another form of presentation. The text also doesnt state in which event that happend or shall happen (no date either). That is just another perfect example of manipulating the reader by using random "sources". -- NewJohn ( talk) 13:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

See talk page. Wikipedia:Waste of Time. Polentarion Talk 23:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

For the record: First (see Strohmaier 2014), the term itself has been quoted and used often since it was coined in 2007. Second I made sure to include definitions of the term beyound and after Sußebach. ChristopheT made a valid point about the Duden. Strohmaier 2014 confirms that the term was then already integrated in the Duden Szenesprachenwiki, a sort of urban dictionary in German. The Szenesprachenwiki is currently offline. Duden has produced a printed dictionary based on selected entries. No chance to check for the term online. But I don't think that is a barrier for noteabilty. Polentarion Talk 01:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

An online wiki - which is offline - as a source of its importance! Are you serious?? -- 87.79.175.34 ( talk) 08:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

We should leave the limo-biedermeier for this other wiki then - as the wikipedia is no dictionary. The article here doesnt go beyond an article for a dictionary with a lengthy discription of who used the term at some point somewhere anyways. -- 87.79.175.34 ( talk) 08:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The "background" of the word is according to the article here: A doctorate project of someone, a citation for internal use which got in the hands of the press, and a documentary which didn't use the terms - but according to the author here describes the phenomenon. That is not enough. -- 87.79.175.34 ( talk) 10:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I am serious. Polentarion Talk 14:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC) To quote User:Weissbier deWP Soap opera, AfD revision I believe that the main problem is the (deWP) High Society being part of Bionade-Biedermeier, wearing ugly marinières and getting licked with overpriced Manufactum gadgets. Je suis Tiger! WB! 11:48, 6. Nov. 2015 (CET) reply

You state here that you're motivation for writing this "article" is hatred. You don't care whether you inform the reader or whether you use your source in an appropiate way. That was the reason why your account was taken offline for a month in de:wp [19] -- 87.79.175.34 ( talk) 17:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Cologne IP, I have done no such statement. That's beyound any rule here, against a member of good standing of this very project. Noteability of this entry is based on valid sourcing. The AfD is not warranted by facts but seems as an act of revenge. Still the soap opera overthere. Polentarion Talk 18:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The article gives very lear evidence that this is part of contemporary German culture. I do not think thearticle would have been even questioned if it covered an English -speaking country, and the English WP is supposed to cover all the world equally. The article here is much more extensive than the deWP article, but perhaps a much larger explanation of the cutluralbackgroundis needed for English readers. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep also as this seems convincing enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Nicely sourced and interesting article about a notable German neologism. Passes GNG. Carrite ( talk) 16:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Haven Arts (  | 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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 11:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as questionable for better notability with none of this suggesting convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I found some trivial mentions, such as [20] and [21] in The New York Times and [22] in The Wall Street Journal. However, I'm not sure there's enough coverage to satisfy WP:ORG. Maybe this could be merged somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Perhaps somewhere in Culture of New York City or Mott Haven, Bronx? if nobody can suggest a good merge target, then I guess I'll probably go ahead and vote to delete. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 13:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It looks like I'm going to vote to delete, then. Ping me if you come up with a good merge target. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 22:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Binibining Pilipinas 2014. MelanieN ( talk) 03:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

MJ Lastimosa (  | 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 person does not meet the notability guidelines for biographies. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 23:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - Subject received at least some extensive coverage on local media, particularly her stint as a Miss Universe contestant among other things. Blake Gripling ( talk) 06:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Binibining Pilipinas 2014 for now with no signs of notability being that did not place in Top 5 of Miss Universe 2014. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect as mentioned as she may, at best, be best known for that, perhaps not independent for her own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Bristol Grammar School Model United Nations (  | 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 program at a Bristol, UK grammar schools. No multiple, reliable and independent sources about the program available. Prod was removed. Bgwhite ( talk) 23:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No sources have been provided at all, much less independent reliable sources. Individual examples of Model United Nations programs have often been deleted at AfD, or at best redirected to Model United Nations. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model United Nations Cheadle Hulme, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert College International Model United Nations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yale Model United Nations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Model United Nations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Model United Nations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong International Model United Nations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho Chi Minh City Model United Nations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William and Mary High School Model United Nations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skagerak and Nesbru Model United Nations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ontario Model United Nations Assembly, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norway Model United Nations Society, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berkeley Model United Nations for examples. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as I am unable to find RS to demonstrate notability.— Rod ^talk 17:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete completely unsourced. Tim! ( talk) 09:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - local, secondary school MUN competition. Bearian ( talk) 20:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep, noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Jessica Page Morrell (  | 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 couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Deleted 2008, re-created. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Aboutmovies. Boleyn ( talk) 19:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment I found a few sources, but it's so borderline. I added them and cleaned up the article. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 15:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Ran a Proquest news archive search on her name. This is a good search, but very far from exhaustive. Got 29 hits. Began adding them to article starting at the top. Revidews in big, daily newspapers, essays about writing that discuss her advice, added them as I went down the list. Stopped after the seventh hit, because that was more than enough to establish notability. There are lots of sources out there, if/when someone undertakes to improve this article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep E.M.Gregory has found enough for GNG. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 21:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Withdraw nomination per E,M. Gregory. Good work! Boleyn ( talk) 10:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Ignalina school-kindergarten "Šaltinėlis" (  | 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 Lithuanian kindergarten. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

How to understand mon notable Lithuanian kindergarten? And in general, why article should be deleted?-- I'm Lukas! --Talk 15:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13 reply

Lukas, please read WP:42 for a brief summary of what Wikipedia is looking for in the way of notability. — teb728 t c 02:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Lukas, also see https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedija:Reik%C5%A1mingumas. Renata ( talk) 16:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - It's a preschool. As all sources are in Lithuanian, I cannot even determine if this is worthy of redirecting somewhere and if so where. If it is a commercial preschool, it should be deleted. If it is a public or parochial preschool, a redirect to the school authority or the appropriate branch of a church (assuming they are notable) would be appropriate. This is per school article guidelines and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Assistance from a reader of the language would be appreciated. John from Idegon ( talk) 17:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. We don't even have consensus to include pre-schools in lists of schools for an area, let alone to make separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as clearly not satisfying the schools notability guidelines, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools (or preschools!) are presumed non-notable. Carrite ( talk) 16:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

HigherSelf Lifestyle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Can't find any non-trival coverage online of organization. Cubbie15fan ( talk) 20:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. no apparent evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as this clearly has no signs of imaginably better coverage and overall information to suggest satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. Available sources are passing mention, ie trival. Ceoil ( talk) 08:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. I discount the keep !vote, which does not discuss how the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Rudolf Christmann (  | 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 reads in it's entirety

"Rudolf Christmann (10 January 1900 – 27 June 2007) served in both World Wars. He was the oldest living German during the last month of his life."

with no sources. He hardly seems notable even if he was the oldest German at some point, which seems doubtful at 107. Legacypac ( talk) 09:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 12:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 12:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep and expand. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Update I've searched Google with "Rudolf Christmann" and then with his birthdate too (to filter out noise given that he is allegedly famous for being old). Every single hit is mirror of this page. I started to think this mention [23] which has no details and no sources but [24] here we can see its based on Wikipedia too. It appears he is not mentioned at German wikipedia [25] which would be a good place for the alleged oldest person in Germany to be noted. However I did track down the genesis of this article [26] where these pieces of OR are enlightening [27] [28]. Calling his granddaughter and checking with another Wikipedia editor who (off wiki) confirmed he died is not how we usually build articles. Legacypac ( talk) 03:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as failing WP:N based on a complete lack of non-trivial, reliable, third-party sources. Legacypac's comment above suggests strongly that this inability to find sources is based on their nonexistence, rather than some fault in our searching abilities. Canadian Paul 17:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

WV's vote seems based on another agenda and not any analysis of the article. If an Admin could look at the article and evidence presented, this is an easy delete close. Legacypac ( talk) 12:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. What is asserted here is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Quite enough evidence for deletion of both DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The Real With Joseph Azarian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

New show which seems to lack the necessary notability for an article. One article on KCNN, which is part of JGMedia; the show is shown on Next, which is part of JGMedia. No reliable independent sources, very few sources in general. "Next" isn't a complete TV channel, but some part-time channel, online only (I think, it isn't very clear).

JGHoldings, the company behind the channel, is owned by ... Joseph Azarian. Fram ( talk) 07:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

For the same reasons, I have also nominated Joseph Azarian for deletion here in this discussion. Every source about him and his shwos is self-published if you trace back the owners of the different labels, holdings, channels, and so on. 07:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 12:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 12:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

From what I have seen JGJOLDINGS is an independent firm, I don't know why it would be traced back to him and KCNN Post, also from what I know is celebrity news and gossip site, published by Kids Compiter News Network, independent of the company, which I am unsure of why his page and his show's page would be nominated for deletion, so I am going against Muza... I think it's important to dig deeper as this is from what Iknow it is completely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.135.28 ( talk) 22:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Next Entertainment and JG Media is owned by JGHOLDINGS, which from my research is legit. KCNN Post is published by Naseem Nossiff, as the author I don't know where you found JGHOLDINGS to have any ownership with KCNN Post, and I for sure know that it does not as I do work with JGHOLDINGS regularly, @MusaRaza. I can assure you that The Real With Joseph Azarian, great show by the way, I watch it!!, and Joseph Azarian, whom I have met in person, are both legit and are great! I understand that I may not be objective in this as I am with JGHOLDINGS but hopefully I have a bit of insight as to "who owns what here". Cheers! ~~Msnmathco~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msnmathco ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Alright guys, I would like to clear a few things up. I've been watching Azarian since the beginning -- he has no stake in JGHOLDINGS and Next Entertainment, although his family does dominate Next Entertainment, a la Kardashians on E!. Next Entertainment is an online streaming channel similar to CBSN but is also available on specific television sets. Personally, I am dumbfounded as to why his reality show and his page are nominated for deletion. JGHOLDINGS is a holdings firm, fully legitimate, and definitely not owned by a teenager, Joseph Azarian. I have researched this topic and I can see where you are coming from since it does appear that his family do control the channel, but I am positive that they don't. I hope I cleared a few things up for you! Johnmichaels123 ( talk) 22:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Johnmichaels123 reply

Hi everybody! I'm a fan of the show and Joseph and I aided in the creation of the Wikipedia page. I have researched it for a long time, I'm a big fan!! JGHOLDINGS has been around since before Joseph could do long division, User:Fram, so okay... And when I was younger I read KCNN Post, also before Joseph was old enough to do long division! It's completely legit. Hope this helps! Nextentfan ( talk) 22:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Nextentfan reply

Welcome, bunch of unrelated new editors. Nice try, but at the moment you could all read [29] (if someone would try to change it, you can see the same at [30]). What does it say at the top? "It’s no secret that KCNN has become affiliated with JGHOLDINGS". Of course, one doesn't have to go so deep to find the link, the main KCNN page starts with "KCNN Christmas. PART OF THE JGHOLDINGS FAMILY". [31] So obviously you were all mislead and KCNN is a part of JG anyway. So an article on KCNN promoting a show from JGHoldings is not an independent source, bringing the number of independent reliable sources about the show and the person back to zero. By the way, KCNN looks impressive, but seems to have problems. The "About KCNN" link leads to an Error 404 on " http://kcnnparents.jgcontentnetwork.com/404.html" (notice the "jgcontentnetwork" there? What a coincidence). The bottom of every page also states "© 2015 JG Holdings". So please, next time you kids try to impress us by coming here in droves, at least do your homework a bit better. Fram ( talk) 07:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete both Someone playing "fantasy TV" using a show whose only presence is on Vimeo for $2 (!) an episode, which I'm going to say in no uncertain terms, takes massive cajones to try to do for someone with no presence in popular culture (even our worst hoaxes at least use free websites to pass things through, but paid Vimeo downloads? That's beyond sad), and I don't even have to go deep on Warner Bros. Television being a bit ticked that their show of the same title is having their copyright violated. Even the most two-bit video shows at least do Patreon to fund their shows as a last-resort, and KCNN is woefully terrible as a source. Hilariously WP:COI-packed article that has no place here. Nate • ( chatter) 04:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti ^Talk 17:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

The Tourist (upcoming 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)

Delete per crystal. Sources are substandard and most are photo galleries. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 04:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Hell in a Bucket: Pardon, but you've overlooked that WP:CRYSTAL does not somehow forbid articles about completed films simply pending release. For those instances we look to WP:BEFORE and more importantly to WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

lead:(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)

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

• Keep as filming has begun and completed and its production has coverage to meet WP:NFF specifically. While yes, not all are usable (a correctable issue)... enough are. Unlike the nominator, I am unable to inexplicably conclude that "all" the used or the many unused available sources are all bad, [32] [33] [34] and I am thinking that WP:BEFORE was not followed. For example, and since this was shot in Italy, I easily found plenty of acceptable non-English sources to bolster English ones: Firenze Today (Italian), MET (Italian), [ Capital Italiano (Italian)], Intoscana (Italian), Aska News (Italian), Portale Giovani (Italian), Cine Turismo (Italian), Mister Movie (Italian), Optima magazine (Italian)... (and there's more). Title will require changing per WP:NCF to The Tourist (2016 film). It serves the project that this remain and have any issues addressed through regular editing and using available decent sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Update: Others are invited to look at what was originally nominated and compare it to that which was easily improved through regular editing to remove poor sources, fix decent citations and, through use of the many available sources, add more. Thanks. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Schmidt. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

INCITE (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The article's subject does not meet the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 16:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is clearly a major Department of Energy Program that grants large amounts of money, but the vast majority of the sources that I find are 1) from the DOE and program partners 2) announcements of grants. I did find these two, not major, IMO: Interview, early article. If someone is interested, it would be appropriate, IMO, to link to the program from pages for awardees. LaMona ( talk) 18:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as none of this, despite its history here, suggests better satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Together with LaMona's two sources, this one puts the topic over the GNG bar. There are also many, many mentions of the organization's activities. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 23:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete The only non-primary source is the Power Engineering article. The others are primary sources (interview directly with program sponsor and Oak Ridge, a co-sponsor or similar). As such, fails WP:GNG. Article also would likely require major rewrite (not a deal-breaker, I know). Chrisw80 ( talk) 04:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment  WP:BEFORE D1 states, ..."Google scholar is suggested for academic topics."  I get 488 hits on ["Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment" DOE] when I check Google scholar.  WP:BEFORE B5 shows that there are ten links that would be broken if this topic is deleted.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - There seem to be more than adequate sources supporting notability. I have added a comprehensive list to the article's talk page. Numerous wikilinks to this article are also a strong though informal indication of notability. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. this may be borderline notable, but the article is a press release. If someone wants to write a proper article, they can try again in draft space--with much stronger 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep More than enough reliable sources. And Kvng very nicely added them to the talk page. Does need a rewrite. -- MurderByDeletionism ^"bang!" 03:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I would immensely appreciate if this was relisted thrice with hopes for better consensus. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete The article itself has only primary sources. Various references have been suggested here and on the talk page, but IMO they fail to provide the necessary support for GNG. Some are primary; some are passing mentions in an article about something else; and some read like a reprint or rehash of a press release. None are from what we normally think of as Significant or Reliable Sources. As for the Google Scholar hits, they appear to be mostly acknowledgements of financial or computer support - not actual coverage. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: like an ad. 333 -blue 05:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 03:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Trap Mafia (  | 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 hip hop producers. They have a YouTube channel but no coverage in reliable sources. They claim to have collaborated with notable artists but all I can find are unsolicited remixes on their YouTube channel. The two external links are dead.

Pichpich ( talk) 23:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Non-notable group lacking coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 23:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^{Let It Go}  18:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^{Let It Go}  18:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Non-intelligent Wikipedia user. As a Producer in Trap Mafia, Mvrino, I'll be first to say, PichPich, you are absolutely incorrect about the allegations you are preceding to make. You're honestly wasting your time. Trap Mafia Beatz is legit. We are active on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, and Snapchat where our presence is greatly felt. You don't know what you're talking about. You are very un-informed in music production obviously. A "type beat" on YouTube is not an "un-solicited YouTube remix". It is simply a "type beat". A TYPE of BEAT influenced by an artist or producer of higher ranking. Hence the video labels "808 Mafia x Future type beat". They influenced the beat, they are not a part of the beats creation. Also, our websites are NOT dead. They were under construction at the time you attempted to use the links. Click the links now. They'll take you right to our sites where you can purchase and/or listen to a wide array of beats. Don't ever claim that we are "non-notable". We have a lot of credit in this industry. And anyone who is mentioned in our production credits on that Wikipedia page, we HAVE worked with. The is no need to lie about it. I have contact to the artists and producers myself. And I'll contact them for you if you need further "dumbing-down" of this altercation. Congratulations PichPich, you've wasted your time. Have a good day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassanfurrwiki ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 January 2016

• Unsigned comment by Hassanfurrwiki moved from middle of Pichpich's comment. Incivility not removed. ^~~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~~} 02:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC) — Hassanfurrwiki ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

[[User:Trap Mafia Beatz|Trap Mafia Beatz] Also since we are so "non-notable" how about you look up our songs. Here is every song that we have with our credited artists: Costra Nostra Yayo - Everyday ft. Strap Da Fool (of Travis Porter) [Prod. By Trap Mafia] | Go Yayo - Scando [Prod. By Trap Mafia] | Go Yayo - Big Homie [Prod. By Trap Mafia] | Cosa Nostra Kidd - Holy Moly ft. Skooly [Prod. By Cosa Nostra Beats of Trap Mafia] | Young Goldie - MMM [Prod. By Cosa Nostra Beats of Trap Mafia] | Costra Nostra Kidd - Stop Cappin' ft. Street Money Boochie [Prod. By Cosa Nostra Beats of Trap Mafia] | Jiggy Jaxx - Runnin' Thru These Bandz ft. Asco100k [Prod. By Roscoe Beatz of Trap Mafia] | Trula Gang - On My Head [Prod. By Trap Mafia] ( 206.127.141.20 ( talk) 14:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)) reply

Have fun looking those up bud. ( 206.127.141.20 ( talk) 14:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC) HDF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassanfurrwiki ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

(copied from my talk page) Let me reiterate that the issue here is that Trap Mafia has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The list above does not address this issue. Note that notability is not inherited and in any case, it's not clear that any of the artists above are notable to start with. Finally, let me remind you that you are currently editing with a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a social networking service or free web host and you can't create "Wikipedia presence" like you create "Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/YouTube presence". Pichpich ( talk) 18:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Nothing in the way of secondary coverage with any kind of substance. Lots of incidental listings, but (and given the linking of GNG to "non-intelligent" above), none of the third party unrelated reliable sources WP:GNG requires. Crow ^Caw 22:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no indication that they meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. "Notability" in Wikipedia has a specific meaning. Working with notable people doesn't confer notability, and primary sources don't show that the subject is notable. -- bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus following relisting. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Armada Hospital (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG; no reliable 3rd party sources have been provided and I've failed to find any significant coverage of this medical centre in my searches. Article appears to have been created solely for promotional purposes, seemingly by employees of the company concerned (though I've listed that concern at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and I suggest we don't dwell on it here). _└ ^UkPaolo/ _talk^┐ 22:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^{Let It Go}  19:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect or possibly selectively merge to Armada Group. Not notable in its own right. Joseph2302 ( talk) 20:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom Clearly not notable and fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete perhaps and mention at Aramada Group, instead of changing to link this there, because this is entirely questionably and therefore is also risked at restart attempts if open to it. Simply no signs of convincing notability, SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It's already mentioned at the aticle on the group. There's no need for a redirect, because we don't redirect from every building a construction group builds. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Userfy to User:Mliggett835. After two relistings there is not a clear consensus to keep or delete, but the author indicated a desire to try to improve the article and was encouraged by the other commenters. I will explain what is needed on their talk page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Kayer (rapper) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Musician who fails to meet wp:creative. Current sources seem short, not overly reliable or not independent. My web search did not turn up anything else. Happy Squirrel ( talk) 22:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 08:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 08:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Question: I'm the author of this article. Clearly it's my first time working with Wikipedia and I wanted to clarify: is the issue here that there needs to be more verbose articles referenced in the citations? I use citations from sites neither of us have control over so as to stay impartial. Is it more a matter of having longer articles, then? The artist and I are working on compiling more sources to strengthen the article with a couple interviews and other write-ups from a while back. They are older so many of them don't easily appear in Google searches. Would this be sufficient to keep the article? Mliggett835 ( talk) 16:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Reply sourcing to meet notability guidelines is what is needed here. You are on the right track using websites that are independent. However, what is missing is depth (length is a decent indicator) and reliability (some kind of editorial fact checking policy, or other reputation for publishing good material). Happy Squirrel ( talk) 03:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as the author will have to add further solid in-depth third-party sources overall to better satisfy the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus following relisting. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Armada Bluebay Hotel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG; no reliable 3rd party sources have been provided and I've failed to find any significant coverage of this hotel in my searches. Article appears to have been created solely for promotional purposes, seemingly by employees of the company concerned (though I've listed that concern at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and I suggest we don't dwell on it here). _└ ^UkPaolo/ _talk^┐ 21:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Armada Towers or Armada Group (as I'm not sure the towers are notable either). This certainly isn't notable. Joseph2302 ( talk) 20:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom clearly fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Altogether nothing suggests better notability and improvements for this particular hotel. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. FeatherPluma ( talk) 03:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. and do not redirect. We do not redirect from every building a construction group names after itself. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Suzanne Farrington (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:INHERIT - Recluse daughter of two famous individuals. Sources mention her, but are written about others, with the exception of blogs and obituaries. Fails WP:GNG on her own merits; article shows more of what she did not do than what she did. Of particular encylopedic note is a sourced statement that she attended a wedding... and that she maintained a friendship... Scr★pIron ^IV 21:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep, Suzanne was the "keeper of the records" on her mother, Vivien Leigh and is mentioned in numerous articles as being important in her mother's life. Take a look at the extensive bibliography alone. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 21:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

That's pretty much my point. Most normal people's children are important in their lives. She is mentioned, but not the subject of anything. Merge her article to her parents, at best. Scr★pIron ^IV 14:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Repeat The article is much more in depth than that, it also has had at least 10 editors whohave contributed and developed the article over time. There are plenty of other articles that are much less detailed or supported by reference sources than this. I count at least a half dozen sources that deal with her, although, granted, her connection to her famous mother is always addressed. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• reluctant keep I basically agree with Nom/Scorpion. No accomplishment, and the fact that her mother was famous doesn't justify an article. Except that mundane details of her childhood were covered by the press, her wedding garnered long, detailed news stories, she is covered in books about Leigh, and when she died The Telegraph ran an obituary. So the sourcers are there. But what also impresses me is the traffic this article gets. 5,000 or 6,000 people come to read this article every month. So, although she looks to me like a young woman who led an unnoteworthy life, the news coverage and the numbers of people who read the article do seem to establish notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 03:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep as this is another option I also considered. Redirect to Vivian Leigh at best as there is content here but questionably solid enough for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There can be cases where the children of famous people can attract sufficient attention in their own right (even without any specific accomplishments of their own) to be notable. This is one of them, because of the significant coverage in all biographies of the actress. this is one of the few genuine instances I've seen at AfD, except for children of heads of state. DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The question is not whether you or I or anyone thinks that an article topic is "worthy" or whether an individual is "important enough" to merit encyclopedic biography, but rather whether the topic or individual has been covered in sufficient depth by multiple independently-published sources of presumed reliability to support such a piece. This person has. Passes GNG. Carrite ( talk) 16:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Deveren Bowman (  | 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 don't think this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Professional society not that exclusive, coverage not enough. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Gwen Gale, Eastmain and Ged UK. Has been tagged for notability for 6 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn ( talk) 20:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Blimey, there's a blast from the past. There's no doubt she exists, but there's nothing there that says she's notable. I can't find anything substantial, just basic bios. Ged UK  13:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I can't find anything that would make her notable. No shows, no institutional collections, no monographs. Mduvekot ( talk) 16:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. I placed lesser weight on the argument to keep, which did not discuss how the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

SuttaCentral (  | 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 advertisement, created by a user [35] who has worked on spamming this website's link on wikipedia. [36] [37] [38] [39] Capitals00 ( talk) 07:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Unlikely solidly better notable and improvable for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep It is a well known website on Internet which offers translation of Buddhists scriptures in various languages. Its very informative also. No NEED for deletion at all. Buddhist Scholars use this website for scholarly purposes. It's a quite well known website in the Buddhist world. Terabar ( talk) 11:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

None of these are reasons to keep the article. " Well known" is too subjective to be a criteria for keeping an article, as is " informative". Does the subject meet WP:GNG, or WP:WEB? - Aoidh ( talk) 00:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• My apologies if this is the wrong place to respond. In response to Capitals00, I did not spam anything, and would appreciate it if you withdrew that accusation. Look at the cases you cite. In the first two links you give, I removed a link to metta.lk and replaced it with a suttacentral link. metta.lk is an archaic and poorly maintained site, which frequently experiences downtime. In fact it is down as I write this. I replaced this with an accurate and reliable link to a modern site. In the third link, I replaced a link to search.nibbanam.com, which just leads to a "coming soon" notice. In the final case, I added a link to the text where there was none in the original post. In none of these, or any other cases, have I spammed Wikipedia. The pages are obviously improved by my edits. My only mistake, which I freely acknowledge, was that I didn't carefully read the guidelines for making edits—they are long and complicated and I don't have the time. So yes, I am the developer for SuttaCentral and, according to the strict rules, I should not have made these edits. My bad. But I believed—and still do—that the edits are obviously required, in order for the relevant pages to stay up to date with current web resources. It is absurd to characterize this as spamming. The appropriate response would have been to send me a personal message informing me of that rule and asking that I comply with it in future. Sujato ( talk) 23:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• To add to my previous message, I have now looked in more detail at Wikipedia's policy, and I do not believe I have violated anything. What I did was clearly not Citation spam which, in accord with the guidelines there, “should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia.” Furthermore, uncontroversial edits include repairing broken links, which is mostly what I did. These guidelines seem reasonable to me, and I now do not believe that I have broken any of them. Unless I hear otherwise, I will revert the changes. They are entirely uncontroversial, and anyone who knows the topic would agree that these links improve the site. Sujato ( talk) 07:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The article fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The only reference that could be viewed as a third-party reliable source that discusses the article's subject in any detail is this, which reads like a press release more than anything, and the bio of the "author" is literally Lorem ipsum filler. One questionable source does not meet WP:GNG. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG -- Ekvastra ( talk) 06:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements and change in page focus. Bearcat ( talk) 17:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Chloe Griffin (  | 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 writer and artist, which makes no strong claim of notability for either endeavour. The only source here isn't about her, but merely namechecks her existence in an article that's otherwise about the subject of her book. As always, a person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that they exist — it takes substantive coverage in reliable sources supporting a credible claim of notability to get a person in here, but neither of those things are present in this article at all. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - insufficient evidence of notability. TheBlueCanoe 23:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep, refocus and rename to Edgewise (book) per the significant coverage in reliable sources. I have rewritten the article.
  1. Hertling, Pati (Fall 2014). "Chloé Griffin's Edgewise: A Picture of Cookie Mueller". Bomb. No. 129. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  2. Kessler, Matt (2015-01-19). "Edgewise: A Picture of Cookie Mueller by Chloé Griffin". The Rumpus. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  3. Molotkow, Alexandra (2014-12-08). "The unique genius of Cookie Mueller". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  4. Earnest, Jarrett (2014-10-03). "How it Feels to be on Fire: Reading Cookie Mueller Today". The Brooklyn Rail. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  5. Jeppesen, Travis (2015-01-03). "Edgewise: A Picture of Cookie Mueller". frieze. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  6. Desroches, Steve (2014-10-29). "REVIEW: Edgewise: A Picture of Cookie Mueller by Chloé Griffin". Provincetown Magazine. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Edgewise: A Picture of Cookie Mueller to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 05:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep, redirect to Edgewise as per Cunard. There are plenty of RS for the book. As an artist/writer, Griffin seems WP:TOOSOON. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• I see that essentially, this has already been rewritten and well-sourced into an article about the book, instead of a WP:BLP of its writer. On that basis, I'm going to withdraw this nomination and go ahead with the page move proposed by Cunard above. Thanks, y'all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Pediatric Department, Ain Shams University (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Individual academic department in a medical school. Such departments are almost never notable, and this is no exception. Could conceivably be merged, but I think thee is nothing worth merging. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^{Let It Go}  18:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^{Let It Go}  18:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per DGG. Not clear why this particular department of this University is notable .Now Universities have various departments now individual departments are normally never notable for standalone articles. Ain Shams University has its own article. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 10:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as none of this suggests this particular subject is independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. We almost never keep such articles. Bearian ( talk) 20:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Natividad Leiva (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Won some preliminary round of a pageant, but did not win or place. No evidence she passes WP:NMODEL. Legacypac ( talk) 09:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom - Fails NMODEL & GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Questionably independently notable as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 23:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Lilit Martirosyan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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