The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Poorly sourced and advertorially toned WP:BLP, actually an WP:AUTOBIO if you check the creator's username, of a television producer. (First discussion was about the same person, but this is written differently enough that I don't consider it a valid G4.) While there are credible claims of potential notability here, none of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria exempt him from having to be reliably sourced — but all of the referencing here is to primary sources that cannot satisfy WP:GNG. As always, a person does not become entitled to start a Wikipedia article about himself just because his own company's own self-published public relations presence provides verification that he exists — he must be the subject of coverage in media outlets independent of him to earn inclusion on here. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete A majority of the article is unsourced and written from a non-neutral point of view. While the producer has won some awards, they are not major enough to meet WP:ANYBIO#1. I also cannot find coverage in reliable sources even when searching by their production company. Opencooper ( talk) 00:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 00:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:56, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Created by a sockpuppet of User:Blendi111 and there is no evidence of notability as the coach has not been playing in fully pro Adriatic League or similar. The kosovo national league is not enough for notability (at least according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanimir Marinov). Qed237  (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 23:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 23:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Curro2 ( talk) 05:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) © Tbhotch ^™ ( en-2.5). 21:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Kiss It Better (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Weird disambiguation page, one with an article, the second is just a song, and Kiss It Better already does this work with the hat note. Per WP:TWODABS Harry's song is the WP:Primarytopic. Unless Rihanna's reach a notable status, there is no need for this kind of pages, and I'm quite sure Kiss It Better would be moved to become a disambiguation page if Rihanna's song is notable. © Tbhotch ^™ ( en-2.5). 21:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Just redirect to Kiss It Better, which is an article about a song. If an article is created for Rihanna's song (which is very likely), then we can have Kiss It Better (Debbie Harry song) and Kiss It Better (Rihanna song). Kiss It Better would then become a disambiguation page, to which we could redirect Kiss It Better (song). --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 21:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Update: I agree that the page does not need to function as a disambiguation page... yet... I went ahead and redirected to Kiss It Better, which means this conversation is now more like a "redirects for deletion/discussion" conversation. I think the page's current use as a redirect is constructive, and since it serves a purpose (and can be further repurposed later), I think it should be kept. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 21:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

  That's what I did, I mean. If there were more songs, you'd have a point. I'm closing this as there is no article now. © Tbhotch ^™ ( en-2.5). 21:34, 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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Heeba Shah (  | 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 actress. Musa ^Talk ☻ 20:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 20:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 20:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 20:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 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 speedied as CSD A9. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 22:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Refugees (album) (  | 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:NALBUMS, and given the artist doesn't have an article, I say delete. Draft:Rachel Faro was declined at AfC. MB298 ( talk) 20:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:CSD#A9, which says musical recordings don't warrant articles when artist fails notability Snuggums ( talk / edits) 21:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Promotional in tone, and only reference is book's home page. I tagged this for speedy but was reverted (by a Single-purpose account). ubiquity ( talk) 20:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence found that this self-published work satisfies any of the conditions in the specific notability guideline for books : Noyster (talk), 13:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Jackson Ducasse (  | 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 content creator. WP:GNG. All sources in the article do not even mention the person in question. Nothing salvageable, and can't find anything. -- allthefoxes ^{( Talk)} 20:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete; essentially no coverage demonstrating that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. /wiae /tlk 18:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - run of the mill producer. Producers are not automatically notable as creative people. The sourcing is really terrible - blogs, self-created content, and YouTube. A stub would have to be started from scratch. Bearian ( talk) 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Christopher Andrews (  | 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 actor and writer. I could not find anything about him on a Google search. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply

87.9 Pride FM (  | 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 about an unlicensed radio station, broadcasting only by Part 15 rules and online, which is sourced only to its own self-published content about itself and is the subject of no reliable source coverage that I'm able to locate. Wikipedia's notability standards for radio stations only grant a presumption of notability to radio stations that have a full FCC license — a Part 15 or online startup can still get into Wikipedia if it's the subject of enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists, if its existence can be verified only to itself. Also there's a direct conflict of interest, as the creator's username matches the name of one of the two guys named on the website as the station's operators. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Update: two additional sources have been added, but neither of them assists at all — one only supports the existence of an unrelated but similar radio service while not mentioning this one at all, and the other sources the general details of the FCC's Part 15 rules while again not containing any information about this Part 15 station. So the quality of referencing needed to make this station eligible for a Wikipedia article still is not there. Bearcat ( talk) 19:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete As much as support of an LGBTQ station in South Carolina is sorely needed, this is a limited station with no FCC backing, which we generally require for an article here. Nate • ( chatter) 14:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Problem so a keep? TV episodes are notable but the radio station is not. This is maddening. It exist. It is not a fake article. Therefore, a keep. It is notable because it is a real station. I kNow abOut bankS ( talk) 01:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note. Above user has been blocked indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Part 15 stations, which this one is, do not enjoy the same notability under WP:NMEDIA, as full power AM/FM/HD stations do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as not yet better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

You Broadband (  | 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, no significant coverage in reliable sources, tagged for over a year without improvement. Unduly promotional tone. The article was deleted via WP:PROD but the prod was contested; it was restored, but not improved. Huon ( talk) 19:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as this certainly questionably solid for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Muslim supremacy (  | 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 assertion of notability by reliable sources. Also WP:FRINGE. Only sources given are an opinion piece from WSJ (note that Best of the Web is under their Opinion category) ( [6]) and a source from Frontpage Magazine ( [7]) which is generally considered a non-reliable source per discussions on WP:RSN. Please see discussions on RSN at 1, 2, 3. In the spirit of WP:BEFORE, I have looked for other sources. The only other sources I can find are blogs like wordpress, citizenwarrior, jihadwatch, tundratabloids, and clashdaily. I found one self-published book ( [8]). The topic of this article appears to be part of fringe right-wing rhetoric and not covered by any secondary reliable sources. I propose deletion per WP:DEL6. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Please note I had some difficulty with Twinkle. This article has only been nominated once. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I've moved the page back to the original title accordingly. For a purely technical issue like this, we don't actually need to keep the blank error page or leave the actual discussion at the "(2nd nomination)" title. Bearcat ( talk) 19:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not a notable concept, a single source and no demonstration of notability. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Whatever is worth covering here is already covered better elsewhere, and whatever's left over is just badly sourced WP:FRINGE. The religion is not a race in any meaningful sense. Even the Frontpage mag source, (not usable) doesn't support the use of 'racism', and is just broadly ranting against the "Conditions of Omar", (presumably the Pact of Umar) which seems to be the author's pet bugaboo. That article fails to establish "Muslim supremacy" as being a legitimate term or cohesive concept. Is this ignorantly conflating Arab with Islam? If so, we already have racism in the Arab world. Is this about Islam and other religions? How about Islamism? Is this an attempted neologism created by detractors, like Islamofascism? Both seem to have some connection to David Horowitz, but this one doesn't seem to have been consistently used or commented on. There are no usable sources here and there is no obvious central topic. Grayfell ( talk) 20:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Seduisant ( talk) 04:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above and not likely to develop beyond a WP:DICDEF. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 10:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The concept being described, in short: something of a theocratic absolutism whereby a clique of fanatical, ideological elites rule over the populace with an iron fist, is a very real one, of course, and we've long had an article about it: Islamism. This page here is completely superfluous and unnecessary. There's nothing that could possibly work as a truly reliable citation for this page that wouldn't have a much better fit over at Islamism. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 03:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Then merge with Islamism? -- Article editor ( talk) 02:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Still lacks any reliable sources. Does not belong in any article without RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 18:44, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

List of most Billboard Hot 100 Top 10 hits by artist (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Just another indiscriminate collection of information. There's already List of artists by number of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles, so I don't think there's a need to add to the endless trivia of music chart facts in Wikipedia by taking it to top tens. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 00:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as per nom and this is just a repetition of already existing lists. Kansiime (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge to List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones or keep. Useful list, it's been mentioned in secondary sources , but it would fit in nicely with List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones as well. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 15:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, plus comment – I agree it's WP:IINFO. About merging it into List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, that article is already pretty large as it is (even with our limiting a lot of the categories in that article to the top 10 artists, songs, producers, writers, etc.), so adding what is in this article will not improve anything, and it still would be WP:IINFO. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep If its being mentioned in secondary sources it should be kept Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Is it? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Since 2013 comments on the talk page question the notability and really poor sourcing of this bio. Germany does not recognize noble titles, and this person has not done anything to warrant an article on his own. Perhaps his name belongs on some list per WP:NOPAGE Legacypac ( talk) 22:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete, notability is not inherited, and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha has not existed for quite a long time now. — Kusma ( t· c) 15:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep: highly notable. Not only as heir to the head of the royal dynasty that is the second most notable in Germany, but because of the British connection as well, given Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was the name of its ruling house until WW1. No, it's not a reigning house, but the dynasty retains enormous prestige, wealth, and estates, including Schloss Callenburg and Schloss Greinburg which are major tourist attractions. Surprisingly that deletion was even mooted. What next: the Hohenzollerns? http://www.sachsen-coburg-gotha.de/ http://www.schloss-callenberg.com/englisch/history/ Engleham ( talk) 20:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply

  If there are no proper independent sources showing that a random Hohenzollern "prince" meets WP:GNG, of course their article should be deleted. — Kusma ( t· c) 12:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

  However, Hubertus is not some random prince. He's the heir to the head of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty. I can think of several reasons why the page is valuable even for those who would generally hold no interest in royalty per se. e.g. Tourists visiting the castles wishing to know about the dynasty heirs; or readers of the two recently published studies on German royalty-nazi collaboration wishing to know more about how their descendants are tracking today. etc etc. I also checked the edit history of this page and count at least 50 authenticated editors alone who have worked on it. So that is evidence that it is of interest to quite a wide circle. The content I find eye-glazing and can be improved, but Wikipedia allows unlimited pages, and unless an entry is totally irrelevant, one should always err on the side of caution and retention, as it's the equivalent of bookburning. Also, Wikipedia relies on good will, so dumping the hard work of many editors (how many cumulative manhours went into this?) should be especially avoided whenever possible. And as the edits indicate, the topic clearly matters to many. I also believe the comment of Mr Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair is relevant for royals: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Engleham ( talk) 13:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete, notability is not inherited and fails WP:GNG.-- Donniediamond ( talk) 17:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-notable person without even a proper claim to any title at all. Note, moreover, that there is possible canvassing going on regarding this AfD (sigh). And I am not fully convinced his dad is all that notable either. S-C-G basically ended after WW I and the end of the German monarchy and formal titles, and renunciation of the S-C-G name by the current Windsors of the UK. About as important as the current "Stuart claimants" to the UK throne. Collect ( talk) 18:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as head of a defunct or deposed dynasty. Such articles become a target for redirects and mergers, per WP:CHEAP. Bearian ( talk) 22:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep  A look at the title of the article and a double-check that there are references to the topic confirms that this topic is significant within the encyclopedia.  The deletion argument that the topic "has not done anything" is not referenced to a Wikipedia guideline or essay.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge with House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - all the votes above seem to be based more on gut feeling than an actual hard look at sources, so I think this is the best compromise. The notability guidelines for people don't say anything on royalty, even though this chap is a direct descendant of Prince Albert. The only substantial source I unearthed outside the numerous ones confirming his name, date of birth and peerage, is a Hello Magazine piece on his wedding, and I wouldn't stoop to using that as a source even in these desparate times. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, possibly merge. Holds a fake title – Germany has no nobility any more – which makes the article essentially fictional. He is not otherwise notable, judging by the coverage cited.  Sandstein  11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • His title has a historic background and can be used as a courtesy title. He also has title Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) as his legal surname. Fake title is more a title that is self-invented and without any legitimate historic background. -- Editor FIN ( talk) 06:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No, a fake title would be one he'd awarded himself or had made up. His title is very much not a fake and not fictional. Just because Germany has "decided" (without, let's remember, any popular vote on the issue) it wants to be a republic doesn't invalidate historic titles held by its aristocrats. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• I did a 3 second Google for some recent news about him. Here's the stories. He's been hosting ERII. To suggest he's not notable when he can draw media attention in SIX countries, clearly has no basis in the reality Google is bringing up – whatever you might wish to call him. https://www.google.de/#q=hubertus+%2B+%22saxe-coburg&tbm=nws Engleham ( talk) 11:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I have no time for royalty whether they are reigning or claimants, but there is no question that this one is notable. He has attracted interest and as others have said tourists may want to know about him. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as prominent German royal and future Head of very important House. -- Editor FIN ( talk) 06:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A prominent royal who heads an important house. It is utterly irrelevant whether Germany officially recognises noble titles or not; it doesn't mean they don't exist or are not commonly used. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

The Harsh and Payal Hada Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia does not meet the style, the style of errors, etc. I'm Lukas! --Talk 10:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The nomination doesn't make sense? Theroadislong ( talk) 17:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The article needs a complete head-to-toe rewrite. This is one of the most poorly-written articles I've yet seen on Wikipedia (and believe me, it has plenty of competition). The article can't even decide whether its subject is the foundation, the person who founded it, or that person's past business activities. But none of that is a reason to delete it. The article does seem to establish notability as it has received coverage in local media sources. If it is a topic that is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, the solution is to rewrite, not to delete. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 18:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete and I would've said keep if not for the current article and it simply being best to restart it with better information and sources overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The kernal is the section The_Harsh_and_Payal_Hada_Foundation#Harsh_.26_Payal_Hada_Foundation: everything else is off-topic or coatracking. I am tempted to be bold and prune to just that section, which would mean that the article rests on the primary source and the half-page article in Kolkata Gives, an Issuu publication which describes itself as a newsletter. AllyD ( talk) 18:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I have now simplified the article to remove most of the extraneous material which didn't relate to its subject matter. A search for further sources turned up a passing mention of this Foundation's grant-giving in this 2013 newspaper article but that is too slight to add to the article itself. That leaves the reference to the Foundation's own website and the unsigned piece in the Kolkata Gives newsletter. A WP:WORTHYCAUSE but I am not seeing anything to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability at this point, either WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG AllyD ( talk) 08:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not all charities are notable, and to be blunt, this one appears to be run of the mill, and the sourcing is terrible. Bearian ( talk) 17:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Can be restored, I guess, if somebody really wants to merge or transwiki a lot of buscruft.  Sandstein  10:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

University Transport System 428 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

Unitrans 3536–4350 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unitrans 3852–3861 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unitrans 4509–4510 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unitrans 4514–4515 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unitrans 5311–5312 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unitrans 6773–6774 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unitrans 9613–9616 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unitrans RLH21 & RLH34 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unitrans RTL1194 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

University Transport System 2960 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

These kinds of pages should be on the CPTDB wiki or something similar (maybe even the Davis wiki), but are not appropriate for a general-purpose wiki like Wikipedia. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 15:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete all Not suitable for their own articles here. Rcsprinter¹²³ (spout) 17:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge whatever information is useful and sourced into Unitrans (possibly creating a new "Fleet" section?) and redirect there. --Regards, James( ^talk/ _contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete I thought I AFD'd all these about 18 months ago? NordicDragon Talkpage 08:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

No you didn't; you tagged them with {{ notable}} - that is different from AfD. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 20:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Errr... No I didn't... I didn't tag any of them as that .. I AfD'd a whole load in August 2013 (under the pseudonym Tommie the Tomato) but they were all merged into Unitrans. NordicDragon Talkpage 08:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Hypothetical mood (  | 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:NOTDICT Prisencolin ( talk) 23:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment I don't quite understand how this article is a dictionary entry. It sure could do with expansion, but it gives a definition of "what the subject is" (i.e. indicating a statement that could have been true) in accordance with the nutshell on WP:NOTDICT. Are you referring to a specific section of that policy? -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 09:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep The nomination could have provided an argument for deletion instead of a vague wave. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - This seems like an ideal merge candidate so that the good information is put somewhere else such that we have a nice set of different linguistic moods defined one after the other in the same place, but I'm not at all familiar with the various articles on linguistics. The merge target... I have no idea. As for right now, this is something more than a mere dictionary entry as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 03:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment seems like there isn't much information I could find about this, although maybe it's due a lack of English language sources on this seeing as English doesn't have a hypothetical mood.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 23:43, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Michael K. Lee (  | 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 actor, fails WP:NACTOR, citations provided are not significant enough to prove notability JMHamo ( talk) 22:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Michael K. Lee is a notable actor, having starred in numerous productions on Broadway. How can I assist to clarify this issue?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Ingram ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 22 January 2016‎

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A working actor, but a notable one, yet. Also, this isn't a WP article, it's a Playbill listing, so it's probably a copyvio. -- Calton | Talk 02:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment Referenced lists of information are not a copy vio,otherwise about half of wikipedia would be deleted. Atlantic306 ( talk) 12:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - First, regarding copyvio issue, using the earwig tool, does not appear to be the case. Second, regarding notability, he's had significant roles in 3 Broadway productions: Allegiance, and the revivals of Pacific Overtures and Jesus Christ Superstar. He also had a significant role in Miss Saigon. Third, there appears to be enough in-depth coverage to warrant inclusion under WP:GNG: Korea Times, Korea Herald, Seattle Weekly, and if not, the literally hundreds of mentions of him in articles from LA, to Philly, to NYC, would appear to meet the requirements of WP:BASIC. While I know it's not a valid argument, I'm sure there's more coverage of him in Korean sources, and would like to see a Korean editor do some research on that. But as it is, I think he passes under at least three criteria: WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Tentative Keep perhaps if it can actually be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Added several citations to the article. Anything it needs? Eric Ingram ( talk) 16:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Eric reply
• KeepThe actor has had prominent roles in notable Broadway productions as well as many in Korea. Reliable sources have been found so I think WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Pinging Joseph2302 and Calton to comment on the new information presented above. Esquivalience ^t 01:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep due to the sources provided but also the small article length. Speaking of Jesus Christ Superstar, I'll give the subject this, at least it's a lot more notable then Bob Bingham ( and I still can't get over that article being kept) edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 02:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Not much in the way of secondary sources; she's a comic who performs, but not much that I can find has been written about her.  superβεεcat  22:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment. She's got local coverage: [9] from KMAX-TV, [10] from Sacramento, and [11] and [12] from News & Review. It's difficult to find non-local sources. Consensus has often been that local coverage by itself is not good enough. If someone can find a solid article in a national magazine, I think that would help show notability. I can't really find any sources that care about her writing career on Lopez Tonight besides the local ones. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 14:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

This is my first time really being an active member of Wikipedia. I'm very excited. This is where I'm not sure about the policies. I've read over the deletion reasons. From what I can tell, I've cited a lot of notable, reliable sources to confirm that Kelly Pryce is worth having a Wikipedia page...two being from major television networks in the USA. In response to NinjaRobotPirate, becoming a member in the WGA is a very prestigious thing in the entertainment writing community. This accomplishment doesn't mean that an article will be written about getting in, but I can assure you that it's not an easy process. We also live in a digital age, so with the internet, there is no longer a thing called local media; If it's online, anyone in the world can view it. She's also been mentioned on the Wiki page for 106.5 KWOD, which I've linked back to this page. Mrs. Pryce is mentioned on numerous comedy club websites, but to spare the people of Wikipedia, I did not link all of them as they all say the same thing about her and her career. I understand that the Wiki community is trying to prevent randoms from posting on this site, but she has a career in the entertainment industry. Thank you for your time. Misflix ( talk) 21:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Misflix reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as unlikely better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Andrew Paskoff (  | 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 production executive without a lot of independent coverage. I found one article in the Hollywood Reporter and a mention in Variety. But there was more substantial coverage of his marriage online than his career and most of what I found were online directory listings which are not reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Andrew is a respected executive in the TV industry with a strong background at some of the industries top content providers, namely MTV and SONY. Scott Paskoff too. These guys are both pioneers of reality TV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlottegatsby ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 January 2016‎

• Delete The only sources I can find are a Hollywood insider stating that he had been given a position with "light-hearted entertainment" and the NY Times wedding announcement (which I assumed is a paid announcement, but anyway, getting married isn't notable). He's still young, and may become notable in the future. LaMona ( talk) 23:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Why is this such a big deal to you and who are you to determine what or who is considered notable?and my wedding announcement in the NYTimes was NOT paid for. You can't pay for that you have to be selected and it's not easy. In fact being chosen to be listed in the NYTimes wedding announcements is a prestigious distinction which actually makes it, and me, notable. Also, you can check all the article links on my Wikipedia page, which are publications and accurate sources that also make me notable! I have worked hard to achieve in my career and such achievements are considered notable, whether you choose to believe it or not. I feel as if this page deserves to remain and I don't think you, whoever you think you are, have any reason to think otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpaskoff ( talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) for examples of what reliable sources and achievements are considered notable by Wikipedia standards which is how we make decisions on whether or not an article should be kept. If you have more independent coverage of your career from reliable sources that you can add to your article, please mention them on the article talk page as you have an inherent conflict-of-interest here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

This page was not started by me so there is no conflict of interest. It seems to be a witch hunt and not sure why it means so much to you or anyone to spend any time trying to get this page deleted. And again, what is considered notable is subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpaskoff ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 January 2016

"This page was not started by me so there is no conflict of interest." -- who knows? Your comments have created the impression of COI even if inadvertent. Quis separabit? 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete I cannot find the kind of significant independent coverage that is required. In fact, I cannot find sources to even verify many of the claims made in the article. It has been extensively edited by IPs who clearly have personal knowledge of the subject. Andrew, you have an inherent conflict of interest here because you are the subject of the article. Who created it is immaterial. Both you and Charlottegatsby (who created the article and has commented above) are confusing "accomplishment", "respect", or personal "achievement" with "notability" as used on Wikipedia. "Notability" on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning. It means that the subject has been covered in depth and generally in multiple published sources, all of which are entirely independent of the subject. If Andrew (and Scott) Paskoff are considered "pioneers" in their field, then you should be able to find an independent published source that describes them as such. I can't. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No signs of better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested, the argument that the subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability has not been refuted. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 06:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Lack of WP:N. Creator did onfuse WP with a resume posting of profile publishing engine. Would make more sense to build an article about the Orphans Organization rather that its director. Mondiad ( talk) 22:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete:As per strong reasons given by editor Mondiad regarding the issue. Resnjari ( talk) 03:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete As per nom Gbawden ( talk) 09:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - May be notable but may need to be deleted and restarted at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo ( talk) 21:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• delete fails notability guidelines CerealKillerYum ( talk) 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• 'Delete no independent/non-routine coverage. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:57, 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) 04:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Nonnotable invention of a holiday Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep or Merge in East_Asian_age_reckoning#Korean. Not entirely sure what this article is about, but if it's a part of Korean culture than it's worth keeping in some way. The term "decimal birthday" is likely a mistranslation or machine translation of some other term, information about which likely already exists on the wiki.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 22:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry, we cannot merge unreferenced stuff. We can only delete it. 01:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete The article does not include adequate refs to support notability.One site about the TKday" is a dead link. Another is someone's l website and says "AsianInfo.org does not guarantee the complete accuracy of the information provided on this site or links. Do your own research and get a professional's opinion before adhering to advice or information contained herein. Use of the information contained herein provided by AsianInfo.org and any mistakes contained within are at the individual risk of the user." The page there which serves as a ref just says that 100 days after birth is culturally important in Korea,since in eras of high infant mortality it is a promising achievement and that the 60th birthday is also culturally important since in former times it represented old age. 60 is not especially "decimal." Checking the internet, I also found a Toronto Star article about how some millenials have judged their 10000th day to be a milestone in addition to turning 18 or 21, since they are 27 and a bit and might be having a midlife quandary. Lump this all together and you have WP:synthesis which is not a good basis for an article. The specific topic "decimal birthday" seems ill-defined and nonnotable. Edison ( talk) 23:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment  The intended topic here gets more comprehensible by looking at an older version, [13], which states, "A decimal birthday is celebrated using the decimal (base ten) numeral system...Decimal birthdays can be celebrated using any time unit (years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds), however the most common form of celebration uses days. The main form of celebration falls on the occurrence of every 1000th day of a person's life."  The 1000 days calculation can be found in Google searches, but I'm not aware of a reliable secondary source.  Compare with Google books, Practical Endocrinology and Diabetes in Children, which identifies decimal birthday as the birthdate stated as [(year-1900) plus <the day converted to fractions of a year>], so a decimal birthday for someone born on 2 July 1999 is 99.501.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can imagine an article about certain birth days being celebrated more (e.g. 40 years old, 50 years old), or those calculated in days. But there is no indication this is called "decimal birthday", nor is their any source. If someone want to write about the subject, with a citable-title and sources, they can always re-start from scratch... L.tak ( talk) 15:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment  [14] quotes from a professor, but I think that a careful reading yields that it is a reliable source for an article called 10k Day with an alternate name of Tkday, but doesn't stand on its own to define "decimal birthday".  Unscintillating ( talk) 17:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete I tried googling for this but I found next to nothing. And in addition to the East Asian age reckoning article, there exists a separate Korean one as well: Korean birthday celebrations. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 04:49, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 21:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• delete fails GNG CerealKillerYum ( talk) 17:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:19, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 20:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete.-- Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Bukas, Babaha ng Dugo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Film with questionable notability, see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Ng Sablay Wgolf ( talk) 20:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)withdrawn Wgolf ( talk) 22:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Wgolf: You linked to an AFD that resulted in a keep? That your wish here too? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

expanded alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep per meeting WP:NF. While yes, the nominated article was in poor shape, but a little WP:BEFORE showed available sourcing and allowed it to be easily improved. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Withdrawn-also I put a link to the other AFD as I wanted them to be merged into one afd was why, but too late now. Wgolf ( talk) 22:15, 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. joe decker ^talk 00:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 20:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete can't find any reliable coverage of this band, and article doesn't have anything better. Doesn't meet GNG or BAND. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 21:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as this could be better notable and improvable but there are simply no obvious and convincing signs of it. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

A Hopeless Motive (  | 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:NBAND. MySpace is not a reliable source. There are not any WP:SECONDARY sources on the web, only list entries, self-published stuff and the band's own promotion. Nothing has been written in depth about the band by third parties. Binksternet ( talk) 19:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Clearly none of this suggests even minimally better notability and coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I authored this page, and I can guarantee you it is not an advertisement as we have not been active since 2007. I maintained it as a memoir. I plead that you give me a chance to find more relevant articles to support our history, as they are out there, but unfortunately most of them were in print rather than on the internet. This would satisfy WP:NBAND and establish WP:SECONDARY sources, but will take me a bit of time as I am a working father of three. Again, this is a factual article of historical events, and deleting it from Wikipedia would only decrease the amount of historical knowledge available to its users. Monumentalbasser talk 12:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

You used MySpace to support the statement that a particular performance is "commonly known" as the band's greatest. You need WP:SECONDARY sources for that, and more than one if you want to keep the article. Binksternet ( talk) 05:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, and in that message I pleaded for time to gather those WP:SECONDARY sources so the page may be kept, but instead someone went ahead and deleted it, so oh well. Thanks... Monumentalbasser ( talk) 18:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The article contains two unreliable sources: http://www.myspace.com/ahopelessmotiveband and http://www.fm99.com/Homegrown/2868834.

  There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow A Hopeless Motive to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 06:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

We-Sport (  | 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 seems to be WP:PROMO of a very small company. Main contributor appears to be the creator of the company, Marco Ivaldi. Creator of the page also appears to be an SPA, likely another one of the company founders. Lots of references on the page but they all seem to be trivial or non-reliable. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 19:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete It was hard to figure this out because the prose is so poor. I did some work on it just trying to make sense of the article. There are newspaper articles about the network as a startup, but if you go the company's site their list of upcoming events is empty, and they haven't tweeted about events since late October 2015. I also couldn't find any recent articles about it in the local newspaper (Turin, Italy) and it definitely seems that is the only place with activities. So it's local only, wanting to be world-wide, but apparently not even making it locally. LaMona ( talk) 22:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

• Delete per nom. Plus, article contains no English-language citations. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as none of this better satisfies the applicable notability, there is some coverage but questionably enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Sandhya (TV Serial Actress) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Actress with questionable notability with no reliable references either Wgolf ( talk) 18:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

As a note-the first ref is to Facebook which is unreliable and the 2nd has nothing to do with her. Wgolf ( talk) 18:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I should add all the google results I get for Sandhya Jagarlamudi (which is apparently her real name) are for either Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter or Instagram it seems! Wgolf ( talk) 18:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, no significant coverage in reliable soruces. -- Nick⁠—⁠ ^Contact/ _Contribs 18:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 21:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 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. ( WP:NPASR). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Femina Miss India 2016 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability can not be determined from this article. Looks like a crystal ball, but article claims that the pageant was already held. The Banner  talk 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Page will develop over the coming months once the results are out for pageants. Daan0001 ( talk) 16:40, 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 . Don't spin out again until there is proper sourcing and detail to add Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Binibining Pilipinas 2016 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Crystal ball, not even the date is known... The Banner  talk 19:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete who knows if it will even happen. Legacypac ( talk) 20:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep it generally passes WP:GNG as for an upcoming event. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• How does it pass WP:GNG? ( WP:ATA) Mkdw ^talk 07:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment well like Miss America and Miss USA, this Philippine pageant competition involves with Big Four international beauty pageants and makes a bit notable simply its a event held once a year. ApprenticeFan ^work 12:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• But we don't work on guesswork, we work on sources. And the only source given is just a passing mention... The Banner  talk 11:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• I guess a redirect to Binibining Pilipinas until more details are announced would be a reasonable option? Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 13:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep I agree it is the WP:GNG passed in the upcoming event the sourced was officially announced on tempo news flash from Binibining Pilipinas 2016 [15]. Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • That official announcement is not more than a passing mention. The Banner  talk 11:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Draft and userfy as there's no better information here and it's until April, a few months away. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Binibining Pilipinas until more details are announced per Narutolovehinata5. I agree with The Banner that the source provided by Oripaypaykim is a passing mention. Cunard ( talk) 06:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Like Hazeltons, this is a non-notable release on almost every measure. The Sputnikmusic page are a series of user opinions. 和DITOR E tails 18:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy ^Talk _Contribs 18:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

I'm having almost every notablity concern in the book with this topic. I was not able to find anything but only a passing mention in this Pitchfork interview. The sputnikmusic review that I removed from this page was a user review, making this a completely non-notable album. 和DITOR E tails 18:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy ^Talk _Contribs 18:39, 15 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. The first part of the debate discussed this version of the article. Subsequently, the article was reverted back to being a disambiguation page, which the second part of the debate discussed. The delete !votes centered around the incoherence of the original article, the keep !votes centered around the fact that a coherent disambiguation page once existed, and one redirect !vote disagreed with the usefulness of the disambiguation page. Three separate arguments, but little substantive discussion for each. Thus, I see no viable outcome other than "no consensus." (non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 04:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Swaminarayan Gadi (  | 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 am not sure of this article's purpose. And its talk page is tagged with WikiProject Disambiguation? I don't think this page benefits Wikipedia. -- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 16:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete The page appears to be talking about a religious prophet, which religion this person is related to, I do not know. Seasider91 ( talk) 16:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment After doing a little research it appears this page is a duplicate of Swaminarayan. I highly doubt a redirect would be beneficial in this case, or maybe it could? Seasider91 ( talk) 16:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Revert It seems there was a somewhat useful disambig at one point. It is possible the faction could meet notability for an article but this is not that article. Page may need protection Yasth ( talk) 17:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep and trout Reverted back to normal disambig. Page has been vandalised severely. Dat Guy ^Talk _Contribs 18:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy ^Talk _Contribs 18:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Yasth and DatGuy. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Swaminarayan Sampraday#Breakaway groups and disputes. Not a useful dab, neither linked article contains a mention of 'Swaminarayan Gadi'. The link in the intro, repeated to or three times below that, is the link to the only article which mentions this term, and readers should be directed straight there. Boleyn ( talk) 12:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 17:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Lavita raynor (  | 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 artist, fails WP:MUSICBIO JMHamo ( talk) 22:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Questionable including for both notability, better sourcing and a better article overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete The lack of a claim of notability and support for that claim is the issue here. Need for "better sourcing" is an argument to improve the article and the claim that "a better article overall" is desired is not a justification for deletion. If the sourcing can be provided, the article should be retained no matter how much work is needed to improve the article. Alansohn ( talk) 16:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment I keep finding an actress named LaVita Raynor. Is she the same person? short mention, [16]. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Ozone County (  | 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 for a non-notable subdivision in India. n It is not a census designated population centre as far as I can tell. There is no coverage about this place in reliable sources. One of the previous redirects was to Moga, Punjab. However, I removed its mention there as it was simply advertising, and part of what was essentially a trivia / promotion section. Whpq ( talk) 21:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Doesn't appear to be a legally recognized place, doesn't have coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:NGEO and WP:GNG. — UY Scuti ^Talk 17:01, 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. Given problems with npov this could be as much a TNT job as a GNG. There is no objection to someone trying to write a clean correctly sourced non promotional and npov article but given problems here I'm salting so that the draft gets reviewed before going into mainspace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

Since the last deletion discussion in November the article has changed significantly, but the basic problem - the lack of significant coverage of Brockman in reliable third-party sources - remains unaddressed. Instead, the article subtly misrepresents the passing mentions it is largely based on and inflates Brockman's role. Huon ( talk) 09:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Dear Huon ( talk), please provide evidence before deletion nomination. Deletion aggression seems to be a trend now in technology entrepreneur articles, so I'm going to take the time to debunk it in the case of this particular article. Your vague claims are not supported by the citations in this article. For one, Brockman is the exclusive subject of interview here ^[1] and here. ^[2] That's BusinessInsider, which Alexa ranks as the 250th most-trafficked site. ^[3] Please tell me how that's not of significant noteworthiness. Second, I couldn't find one citation in this article that over-inflated Brockman's involvement or position. Please show me one that does. Finally, you mention "reliable" third-party sources. Scroll down to the References section of this article: Wired, Breitbart, WSJ, SFGate, FastCompany, Seattle Times, NY Times, The Guardian, New Yorker, Slate. Please show me which aren't credible. Executionary ( talk) 18:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment For example:
  • "At Stripe, Brockman shaped portions of the company's organization and technology while helping the company raise over $190 million in funding." - of the two references, one is written by Brockman himself and not a suitable source for arguably promotional content; the other does not mention him at all. Neither mentions Brockman's role in securing the funding, if any. Response from Executionary: I agree. The citations here are weak. Just updated to remove fundraising claim.
  • "He co-founded the company alongside technology entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Sam Altman." - two references, neither says Brockman was a co-founder. / Response from Executionary: He's listed as the co-founder here ^[4]. I've swapped this citation in.
  • "Brockman is responsible for designing the team's operating structure and recruiting researchers from the field, including former Google scientist and neural network pioneer Ilya Sutskever as Research Director and Durk Kingma (inventor of the variational autoencoder) as a scientist." - two references, neither of which mentions Brockman; those sources which do mention both Brockman and Sutskever mention them side-by-side and give no indication that one was responsible for hiring the other. / Response from Executionary: His BusinessInsider interview here ^[5] states he "He says, OpenAI's focus was on making sure that it had the right organizational structure and recruiting the right people to give it a solid foundation for its future research over a span of years and decades." Seems clear he's describing what he's in charge of as the CTO — the person who makes technical and therefore technical recruiting decisions. More concretely, however, is this: "Greg came in from nowhere and scooped up the top people to do something great and make something new." ^[6] I've swapped the citations in.
  • "Brockman introduced an "open by default" email policy to Stripe's internal communications, which was cited in the technology and business press as a novel approach to fostering company culture." - four references, not one of them crediting Brockman with introducing the policy - all they say is he wrote a blog post about it. / Response from Executionary: GigaOM covers his policy here, ^[7] and he announces it in his own blog post on Stripe, as you mentioned.

Does that list of examples suffice to give an idea of how the article inflates what the citations say (or don't say) about Brockman? The Guardian and The New Yorker do not mention Brockman at all. Slate and NYT do, but only in passing without providing any details. In fact, The New York Times is cited for two sentences that are not about Brockman in the first place and should be removed even if Brockman were notable enough for an article. Huon ( talk) 19:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC) / Response from Executionary: Nearly all the links I look at mention Greg Brockman directly or quote from him. A few that are being cited for supporting evidence do not. reply

Keep per the significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes WP:BASIC: ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12]. He is cited by name by in all of them, and directly interviewed/quoted by most. Numericality 22 January 2016

• Delete I'm finding disturbing disconnect between what is said in some sources and what is in the article. This source says that the founders of OpenAI were Musk and Altman. Brockman is said to be CTO, but is not named as a founder. Yet the text says that Brockman founded the company ... with Musk and Altman, making it sound like Brockman was the main founder, or at least one of the main founders. It does the same thing in another part of the article. Here are two bits of text:

article: "serves as the CTO of the artificial intelligence non-profit OpenAI, which he co-founded with technology entrepreneurs Elon Musk (of Tesla and SpaceX) and Sam Altman (of Y Combinator)"

source: "OpenAI, the new company cofounded by Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Y Combinator President Sam Altman, took a long time to come to fruition, says CTO Greg Brockman."

I removed a few promotional statements, and when I started checking references many did not support the statements they follow. It turned out to be a big job to go through it all, but when I saw the part about founding the company I concluded that nothing in the article could be trusted. Also, the article has been WP:REFBOMBed with four or five cites for a single statement of fact. Taken together, I am concluding that this article violates WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV. It is quite possible that a non-promotional article could show notability, but this isn't that. LaMona ( talk) 23:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now as questionably solid despite some links here and there, restart if better later at best. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep: as per Numericality's rationale. No proper reason given to delete this article. -- Fixuture ( talk) 19:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. He has not gotten substantially more notable since the first AfD. Claim such as "shaped portions of the company's organization and technology" or while "helping the company raise XXX million" are vague; every executive in the firm at the time could probably say that. "Founder" is often claimed, but needs to be documented--many new companies list quite a number of people as co-founder, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a role. Ref 4, a Huffington Post article not substantially about him, lists him as founder, but all other sources name only Musk and Altman. I agree with LaMona that this is pretty close to G11 territory . Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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