Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 March 8 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 17:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Sherman Bergman

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

BLP appears to fail WP:N. The only "notability" appears to derive from unreliable sources and former experience(s) as an amateur boxer; a kickboxer who once lost to Jean-Claude Van Damme and Gary Daniels; a long career as an uncredited, movie extra and a school teacher. Article also appears to vio WP:PROMO. X4n6 ( talk) 22:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. X4n6 ( talk) 22:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I disagree. The Bergman page has many legit sources from the Miami Herald archives from the 1980s-present day, Official Karate Magazine, Day by Day in Jewish Sports History, and the STAR Computer Ratings for kickboxing. As a fighter, Bergman scored 56 knockouts (sourced in the Miami Herald) and is the only fighter credited with knocking down Jean-Claude Van Damme in a sanctioned match. He was rated at one point in the top 20 in the world ratings. His amateur boxing career, movie career and educational career are sidebars to his kickboxing career. His kickboxing career is clearly documented over 4-decades. His retirement merited an entire page in the Miami Herald Sports page. This page can be shored up, if needed, but should not be deleted. Thank you. FranciscoFWPerez ( talk) 04:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)FranciscoFWPerez — FranciscoFWPerez ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

  • Comment. I respect the work you've put into this BLP and appreciate your willingness to improve it. But as you noted, it still only achieves N through the subject's kickboxing career. But it fails there, per WP:NKICK. Also, having fight results published; knocking down Van Damme, only to still lose in the first round; or being the subject of a single human interest write up in the local newspaper, don't inherently confer notability.
There are other problems. There are dozens of unsourced fights listed. They could vio WP:COI, WP:PROMO or WP:OR, but they need to be sourced. You also seem to know the subject's amateur boxing doesn't meet WP:NBOX; his local teaching doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC; and being a movie extra doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. But again, the BLP fails NKICK, so on that basis alone it should be deleted. X4n6 ( talk) 07:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 11:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Subject does not meet the notability criteria for boxers or kickboxers. Notability is not inherited from others. Linking this article to everything you can find about anyone he ever fought (amateur or pro, boxer or kickboxer) does not show he meets WP:GNG since there is a lack of significant independent coverage about him. Routine sports coverage also does not count towards showing notability. He doesn't meet any SNG or GNG. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article's main claims to notability seems to be who he competed against or was a sparring partner of, but notability isn't inherited. There's no evidence that he meets the notability criteria for kickboxers, boxers, or actors. Lots of passing mentions are insufficient to show notability via WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 00:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. Vanity article created and maintained by Bergman SPAs (all likely socks of each other) – see my proof below. Softlavender ( talk) 08:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC); edited 02:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Vanity article, no notability seen in numerous online searches. When I limited my search to pre-2005 sources (written before this Wikipedia article), all I found was this 1998 letter to the editor of Black Belt magazine, the letter signed by Sherman Bergman. After 2005, the level of self-promotion rises greatly, with lots of the same stuff being added to IMDb and other places such as this local newspaper article written by Bergman, published in 2014. If the guy wasn't listed in the amateur boxing record books then we don't need to tell readers about him. Binksternet ( talk) 14:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A few points. The Miami Herald has covered Bergman's kickboxing career from 1988-2010. If you look at the references you will find a link and see numerous reports for 3-decades. The Miami Herald is a local paper with between 140-190,000 issues sold each day. Very few kickboxers have had such extensive coverage of their fight careers in the Herald as Bergman. Next, there are two links to Offical Karate Magazine from 1985-1986, in which well-known kickboxing sports writer Barry Harrell reported Bergman as one of the most promising prospects in his weight division, Offical Karate was sold nationally. There are links to News For You which covered Bergman's knockout over Bernardo Jua. This was an educational newspaper sold nationally in the USA. Foundacion Brazil was a Brazilian Paper and covered a report on a few of Bergman's fights. The knockdown of Jean-Claude Van Damme is very notable in kickboxing, because this was Van Dammes only knock down in sanctioned competition. The loss to Gary Daniels also has merit, because of Daniels 34 victories, 33 by knockout, only Bergman lasted the distance. Kickboxing never had a fight data base like boxing, until Paul Maslak started the STAR Ratings for kickboxing. Maslak, through emails, has confirmed 21 of Bergman's pro fights (19-1-1, 19 knockouts) from 1980-2010. These verified fights are noted on Bergman's fight record. I believe that while Bergman is far from famous as is kickboxing champion Don Wilson, his fight career is notable for his knockout record and his accomplishments against top fighters, though losses, were standout performances. Thank you. FranciscoFWPerez ( talk) 01:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)FranciscoFWPerez. — FranciscoFWPerez ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
What emails? Emails aren't a reliable source. If the knockdown of Van Damme was so important, why was it not carried more widely? The problem here is that Bergman was on his high school newspaper staff and then as an adult he was professionally connected to the Miami Herald, which is why he gets favorable and disproportionate coverage by their reporters. The Barry Harrell piece is not enough to establish notability: lots of fighters are praised as promising prospects but then don't achieve national fame. Nothing here satisfies WP:NKICK or even just WP:GNG because of the barely existing coverage outside of Bergman's friends at the Miami Herald. Binksternet ( talk) 02:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note FranciscoFWPerez, the requirements for determining kickboxers' notability are very clear and very specific and you have never addressed them. See them at WP:NKICK. Voters have repeatedly said, the subject does not meet these requirements. X4n6 ( talk) 07:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE: Article was entirely created by a massive Bergman SPA sock farm (both registered and IP):
This article was entirely created by a Bergman SPA sock farm, who edited exclusively on Sherman Bergman and his father Hank Bergman, and any other article they could stick either of those names into:
And 76 IP SPA socks
  • DavidToma called this article "my article" [1] in March 2008, even though the article was created in 2005 by 4.231.192.65, and added to extensively by the other IPs and 18 of the other registered SPA socks by March 2008, and DavidToma's contributions did not start until September 2007.
  • Between March 2009 and July 2011 sockpuppet Legwarmers1980 uploaded 17 newspaper clippings referring to Sherman Bergman to Flickr: the Flickr account ID tag is "legwarmers1980", and the Flickr account is exclusively devoted to Sherman Bergman and his father Hank Bergman [2]. These 17 Flickr uploads by Legwarmers1980 constitute 17 of the citations in the article.
  • All of the IP socks from 2005–2008 geolocate to Wichita, as does this clear talk-page posting by DavidToma logged out in September 2008: [3]. All of the IP socks from 2009–present geolocate to Miami (Bergman's hometown), except for two which geolocate again to Wichita.
-- Softlavender ( talk) 09:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • There seems to be a leaning towards that all the information in this page is made up. A bit perplexed. The Miami Herald covered Bergman's career for 5-decades because he is from Miami-Dade County and his victories merited the write ups. To imply, that Bergman has an inside connection to the paper is bizarre to say the least. Offical Karate Magazine was published Nationally. Barry Harrell was highly respected. Bergman's knockout over Morsak was covered by Offical Karate. Paul Maslak is a legend in record keeping for kickboxing. Many kickboxing results are not online. Not every reference in the world is online. Links to flickr are scans of various newspaper articles which do not appear online. To imply that I only created pages link to Bergman is a bold face lie. I created Carl Starling, Al Migliorato, Bobby Halpern, etc. I am a big fight fan and worked hard on everything I posted. FranciscoFWPerez ( talk) 16:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)FranciscoFWPerez reply
Nobody here is saying that the information is false or fabricated. People are saying that it isn't important enough for Wikipedia. Karate Magazine mentioned Bergman in passing, so it's not enough coverage to establish notability. Nothing wrong with being a fight fan, but the rules for notability must be followed. Binksternet ( talk) 00:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The nom's concerns appear to have been addressed, and the other "delete" opinion is not compliant with policy when it argues that notability or sources outside Serbia are required.  Sandstein  10:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Goran Vuković

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

Delete article for now, can be returned to its creator's mainspace for the massive improvements it needs. Utterly unsourced with a few one sentence paragraphs containing unsubstantiated allegations. I did a google search -- a few links came up in Serbian or Croatian or whatever but it is not my responsibility to translate them. Valid non English-language links are acceptable, of course, but it is the article's creators' and/or editors' responsibility to reflink and translate as appropriate. Quis separabit? 22:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. By nature, most references are going to be in Serbian. I cleaned up the article and added a reference from Vreme corroborating several statements in the article. I concede that it isn't perfect, but frankly I'm not too interested to dig further. No such user ( talk) 16:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Perhaps it belongs in the Serbian Wikipedia, in all events, I can't source it and I don't see how we can have an article unless someone can source it show notability beyond Serbia, which could be done by using sources in other languages, or by demonstrating that he received extraordinary, sustained, in-depth national news coverage in Serbia, or that he had a significant impact of some sort on Serbia. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Updated comment in response to No such user. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - sources are provided. they do not need to be in english to be notable. anyway this one passes WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 10:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Nicholas Sension

Nicholas Sension (  | 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 appear to be notable. I highly doubt that he was only person in the 1600's that was secretly gay. JDDJS ( talk) 22:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Upon further review of the available sources and the current state of the article, I am going to formally vote for deletion. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 23:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 06:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Ena Kadic

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

Delete: Ena Kadic and redirect ( Ena Kadić) as non-notable. I understand that beauty pageant winners can be considered notable, but not each and everyone regardless of the how slim and minimal the credentials. Tragedy of her death also does not indicate notability. Quis separabit? 21:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per a substantial amount of coverage in reliable sources: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ena+Kadic%22&tbm=nws Linguist 111 talk 10:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, subject of significant coverage from multiple different reliable sources over a period of time. — Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO, having received a notable award, argument about a lack of articles for other winners is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. also, scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants reads "This WikiProject will cover the creation, editing, and organization of articles related to state, national and international beauty pageants, their delegates and winners." which therefore includes Miss Austria winners. Maybe, some of the above deleters can assist? Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  All contestants at Miss World meet our basic notability rule that topics have reliably sourced information showing that they attract the attention of the world at large.  I have recently verified at the WP:RS noticeboard that a Miss World biography is accepted as a WP:RS for personal biographical information, including age.  Massive international coverage is found on the first page of the Google "Find sources" link, including from England, Ireland, Australia, Phillipines, and yahoo.com.  Likewise, the link provided by Linguist111, of Google news, shows the same pattern including Italy and Hungary.  The nomination has not followed the minimal search documented at WP:BEFORE.  Nor has the nomination checked and reported on the effect on the "What Links Here" were this article to be deleted, nor considered that non-notability is not a deletion argument when the topic is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia (see WP:Insignificance).  The delete !votes have not shown any attempt at determining notability.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although Nyttend hasn't returned to comment on the source noted by Joe Decker, there is a clear and uncontested consensus to delete nonetheless. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Stephen Maitland-Lewis

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

The references are insufficient to demonstrate that WP:AUTHOR is met as most of the awards are by obscure organisations. There is a claim to have won a Benjamin Franklin Award for Historical Fiction but I'm unable to verify that e.g. from the official site. Searches for other sources to meet WP:BIO haven't produced anything. SmartSE ( talk) 10:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. When you add a hoax, e.g. the Franklin non-award, we can't trust what else you're adding to the article, and we can't trust your conclusion that the subject is notable. Nyttend ( talk) 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am reopening this debate for review of one source that may have been missed in the discussion. joe decker talk 21:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker talk 21:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I've reverted the closure of this discussion, as there was a source added to the article which I believe was not considered in the discussion. The last edit to the article (diff: [4]) does provide a link to a PDF, which is easily overlooked, as it does not mention the article subject. The source [5] lists as one of the three winners in the Historical Fiction department the title "Emeralds Never Fade", which is indicated to be a work by the subject in the bibliography. As it appears that that evidence may have not been seen by the discussion participants, I'm reopening the debate. Sorry for the extra lap. Notifying all previous participants: @ SmartSE:, @ Nordic Dragon:, @ Nyttend:. -- joe decker talk 21:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I had noticed this and should have probably commented as such. Regardless, the source lists one of his books as a finalist but not the winner. The source doesn't even list the author's name, let alone provide in-depth coverage. SmartSE ( talk) 21:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the pdf above lists just over 150 books. A book with the same name as one the author self published is one of them. I have no reason to personally doubt that it is his book, but with no name attached verifiability for Wikipedia purposes is stretched. If this is the best claim to notability then I am afraid I have to end up as a delete. AIRcorn  (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment My 'Delete' vote stands, as above. Nordic Dragon 15:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show it meets notability criteria. I agree with the assessment of the pdf source - doesn't show that this is the book, and even if it is, not that the book was the winner. Onel5969 TT me 13:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Marcus Schroen

Marcus Schroen (  | 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:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Scoring a couple of goals in the FFA Cup Hume City doesnt make him notable. Simione001 ( talk) 21:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 22:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - A Google search of his name brings up surely more than enough significant, reliable and independent sources to allow him to pass GNG guidelines. I created this article as I genuinely wanted to know more on the topic and subsequently figured that others would've felt the same way. - J man708 ( talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 22:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:CSD#A7. This shouldn't have gone to AFD. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Puran Gurung

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

Copy editing doesn't generally lead to anyone knowing about you outside of your job environment, and, indeed, I find no evidence that this person meets WP:GNG. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 19:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Aidan James

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

COI, Possible blp prod and notability issues. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 19:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

James is certainly notable, particularly in Hawaii, and when I copy edited the article for the GOCE backlog I found and added several citations. He seems to have an on-going and growing career. Article should NOT be deleted. IMO. Twofingered Typist ( talk) 19:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 19:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 19:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 19:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Chris Ulugia

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

Contested prod. Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:RLN, having never played at Super League or NRL level. J Mo 101 ( talk) 18:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep: I'm torn here, he seems to fail WP:RLN (I assume he didn't play in the Super8's?) but there is quite a bit of coverage on him, so he probably passes GNG [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. The article as it stands is sparse but I think overall he is notable. Mattlore ( talk) 19:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Aside from maybe the Daily Mercury article, can any of those be considered significant coverage though? J Mo 101 ( talk) 23:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

2016 Thane stabbing

2016 Thane stabbing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for events; no indication that this criminal act will "have enduring historical significance" or have "lasting effect". Wikipedia is not a news outlet. 331dot ( talk) 19:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Biwom: Other things exist; each article is judged on its own merits. I would support deleting articles about domestic violence incidents that have little lasting notability. 331dot ( talk) 16:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Gsvadds: I would respectfully disagree that 14 is "massive". That's relatively small compared to plane crashes, bus accidents, natural disasters, etc. Last December there was a stabbing in India with 20 victims [18] so this is not unprecedented. 331dot ( talk) 20:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a news outlet that just repeats what is in the news. You state that this is "important"- how is this tragic domestic event important? What is the "enduring historical significance" of this tragic event? Has it resulted in legal or policy changes in India, or any other tangible effect? 331dot ( talk) 21:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT. Despite the larger number of deaths traditionally seen in domestic incidents, this remains a domestic incident. The people involved are non-notable so there's no target to redirect this to. Just because it received international coverage, this does not mean that it merits an article on WP, because a burst of news is not the same as enduring coverage. -- MASEM ( t) 19:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep WP:GEOBIAS - can anyone imagine a similar incident in the US being successfully nominated for deletion? The National Western Complex shooting article, about a fight between outlaw motorcycle gangs with a single death was closed recently as no consensus. See, for example Category:2015 crimes in the United States and associated subcats. WP:NOTNEWS says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" - in no way is that a prohibition of covering major, significant incidents with international coverage like this. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
A fight between organized gangs is different than a domestic incident. Other stuff exists. I would support deletion regardless of the nation involved. 331dot ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
strong delete These ITN articles are devaluing the encyclopaedic merit of WP. Further, 1. a non-notable lunatic killing his family has ZERO repercussions whatsoever (unless some psychiatric revelation is made in the future ( Stockholm syndrome) we can always recreate it) and 2. the article constitutes nothing but a few lines of the media (media is not an encylopaedia, which is why the top WP articles frown on media reports). Moreover, this was not a societal threat but an inside issue so its repercussions have not been demonstrated. Heck iread the Asian Age in MUMBAI the next day and it wasn't even highlighted but relegated. Lihaas ( talk) 07:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
"The top WP articles frown on media reports" … yesterday's featured article was almost entirely sourced through newspaper articles. The whole point of Wikipedia is that not everything has to be published in a book before it becomes significant. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per AusLondonder and EugenSimion. We have articles on stabbings in the U.S. where no one was killed, let alone fourteen people. The event has received large amounts of coverage in international media, and it's purely WP:CRYSTAL to claim that this event will have no lasting significance. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
@ IgnorantArmies: It isn't CRYSTAL to claim it won't, it's CRYSTAL to claim that it will. Once it does, then it can get a page, but the article shouldn't exist in anticipation of it having significance; it needs to be significant already. Other stuff exists; the article you cite is a very different situation, which led to a federal terrorism investigation. This is not terrorism, but someone killing their family, a domestic incident with little significance outside the family(unless there has already been policy or legal changes in India because of this incident). Wikipedia is not a newspaper that parrots the press. 331dot ( talk) 08:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Cunard: No one denies this got a lot of attention, but what is this tragedy's "enduring historical significance" and/or "lasting effect" as called for by WP:NEVENT? 331dot ( talk) 12:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria:

Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.

Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).

It is too early to tell whether this event has "enduring historical significance" or "lasting effect". Therefore, I default to supporting retention, particularly because this event was "very widely covered in diverse sources" from international sources so is "very likely to be notable". I echo the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident:

What is needed now is an end to discussion and a bit of perspective. Wait a couple of weeks, or a month, then re-run this if that seems like a good idea. I'm quite certain, and I think most of you would agree, that it will be much easier to ascertain consensus one way or another at that point when we have a bit of distance from the current cable news cycle, and since we are not on a deadline, and since I don't see WP:HARM as an intrinsic issue here if the article is kept at least for awhile, we should take the time to get it right when it comes to the question of whether this topic is Wiki-worthy or not, rather than basing that decision on a flawed AfD that unfolded in a fluid news environment and an overheated Wiki-environment.

Cunard ( talk) 06:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Yasser Shams Eldden Mohamed

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

basically fails GNG — OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 17:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 17:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 17:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4, as a recreation of Yasser Shams Aldden. The nominator should probably have check the article history before trying to get this article speedied for another reason, as the history showed that the article had already been tagged as a copyvio from Deletionpedia (though with the tag promptly removed by the article "creator"). Of course, anything copied from Deletionpedia is unlikely to be a copyvio - but, seeing that Deletionpedia gets its content from here (and for what reason), WP:G4 is highly likely to apply. My own feeling is that the relevant AfD discussion was possibly thin enough to allow for an appeal to WP:DRV, particularly if an editor had meanwhile identified further potentially reliable sources - but this constitutes a blatant end run around our procedures. PWilkinson ( talk) 12:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. PWilkinson's rationale is also solid. Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Mujahid Hussain

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

fails GNG — OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 16:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This article has precisely one reliable source useful for establishing notability. Guidelines call for 3-5 independent, reliable sources. Chrisw80 ( talk) 20:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - while there are numerous sources found in the search engines, none seem to be about this particular person with this name. Most are about either a general, a terrorist, or a musician. Onel5969 TT me 13:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Jason Maek

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

Unremarkable wannabe. Sources are flaky. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

& possible a speedy candidate as the recreation of an article deleted after discussion. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as, although this may not be convincing enough for G4 because he has a new release this year, and of course that's not to say at all there's notability and better improvements here, but simply still none of this current ≤article satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Jason Maek is incredibly relevant. I have no idea how this is a discussion. He is a well accomplished musician and "operates the largest electronic music record label in the Midwest" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akia chenise ( talk • contribs) — Akia chenise ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

  1. ^ http://edmjobs.com/career-spotlight-jason-maek-ceo-of-maek/
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

United Airlines Flight 102

United Airlines Flight 102 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable aviation incident. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The Chinese Buffet

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

Declined speedy onn the grounds that there is 'some press coverage'; however almost any business of this kind will get some press. It's called PR, or local newspapers desperate to print something. IMO this is non-notable, and a look at what google comes up with does not persuade me otherwise; run-of-the -mill listings coverage. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There are a couple of passing mentions in a Highbeam search, some more similar on Google, but the most substantial information that I can see is on a company press release [19] (which obviously doesn't meet WP:RS). Nothing there indicates that this is more than a firm with expansion plans, but not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD ( talk) 16:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I found two newspaper reviews of two of the restaurants for secondary sources and added them to the article. I also expanded it just a bit to mention the cuisine, added a category and a wikilink. My !vote is weak because I'm leaning a bit toward thinking the article has been created a bit too soon for the chain to meet notability standards. I did find the two newspaper articles, [20] and [21], both of which were published just last month, about two of the chain's restaurants. At the same time, I'm leaning toward it being too soon to sweep this one into deletion just yet. The article is very new, but there are a few signs already to suggest notability. This is not, to my mind, a really clear cut example of yet another completely non-notable and completely unsourceable (is that a word?) restaurant chain. Thus my ambivalence. Geoff | Who, me? 18:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Jürgen Buhagiar

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick •  t •  c •  s 16:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Dr.D.Y.Patil Institute of Management & Research,Pimpri, Pune

Dr.D.Y.Patil Institute of Management & Research,Pimpri, Pune (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Private institution with no significant coverage and notability Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 13:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete with fire and brimstone. Was previously speedied as an A7, no credible claim of importance, but almost immediately recreated with the exact same text. Could equally have been speedied as G11, unambiguous promotion. What's more, it is a copyvio of this page so also qualifies as G12. Spinning Spark 14:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

My latest Speedy delete for this was declined by another editor, based that it does not apply to educational institution. Sometimes I am too tired to fight it, so proposed here. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 15:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

YogaSlackers

YogaSlackers (  | 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 business. This a purely promotional article. Every reference in here—and everything I could find elsewhere—was not substantial coverage, not reliable, or not independent. The information about their participation in the Patagonian Expedition Race is interesting, but appears to be about an entirely different subject (a race team sponsored by this company rather than the company itself). —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 13:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

"This a purely promotional article". okay. Can you tell me where is promotional text?
"Every reference in here—and everything I could find elsewhere—was not substantial coverage, not reliable, or not independent." — Yoga Journal is not independent. The New York Times is not independent. The Wall Street Journal (Jason Magness - co-founder of Yogaslackers), Vail Daily, Elevation Outdoors Magazine, TreeHugger. yes? Great!
“To Cross the Moon” (2XtM) was featured in: KX News (YouTube), MSNBC (YouTube), NorthDakota News (YouTube)-- 27century ( talk) 14:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
— Note to closing admin: 27century ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
  • Not independent or not substantial. Reprints of press releases are not independent. One-line or one-paragraph mentions are not substantial. For instance, the NYT mention is not substantial. Articles about the individual founders do not count towards this subject's notability. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 14:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are some passing mentions of the topic, but it's in the context of listing a large number (if not all) of the given participants in an event. There's nothing which sets the subject apart to establish notability. Elaenia ( talk) 06:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
— Note to closing admin: 27century ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
That's a trademark application. I'm not sure how that helps establish notability? Elaenia ( talk) 21:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
It shouldn't. Anybody can apply for mark registration if they fill out an application and pay a fee, and all that mark registration establishes is that the user has nationwide rights to use a particular designation of origin in commerce. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's unfortunate that the hyperpromotional tone and non-neutral WP:POV of this article aren't more fully recognized by folks who may well have been brought up thinking marketingese is the norm. At a minimum serious copy-editing is needed to improve the odd syntax and strip out the self-laudatory and jargony language (and inconsequential detail that probably does mean a lot to the YogaSlackers folks but isn't encyclopedic). I question whether "one of the top 10 adventure race teams in the world" is in itself notable but I am not well-versed in such athletic minutae and base my decision solely on the sadly unrecognized promotional nature of the article that, if improved, may lead to obvious WP:GNG failure. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your informative response-- 27century ( talk) 00:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Fractional Fourier entropy

Fractional Fourier entropy (  | 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 a handful of Google scholar hits, none of which is well-cited, all of which are in the past year or so. Many of these are in the journal Entropy, which, as far as I can tell, is from a questionable open-access publisher (MDPI). Sławomir
Biały 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I could not find any in-depth sources that were independent of the group that developed this technique. With few publications and no in-depth secondary reliable sources, the topic fails WP:GNG criteria and it seems WP:TOOSOON for this topic to be notable. Normally I'd try to find a good merge or redirect candidate, but I found nothing appropriate. Hence, delete. -- Mark viking ( talk) 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

1985 Pukekohe 500

1985 Pukekohe 500 (  | 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:SPORTSEVENT as a motor racing event. Article is really just a results listing LibStar ( talk) 18:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - a poor article that needs work, but the event meets WP:GNG in terms of motor racing events. The guideline cited in the deletion appear to only relate to biographies NealeFamily ( talk) 23:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:SPORTSEVENT is not for biographies. LibStar ( talk) 02:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:SPORTSEVENT doesn't appear incredibly useful in this situation, instead it mainly points back to GNG. Mattlore ( talk) 03:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

A search for this under article name and alternative name "nissan sports 500" yields nothing including in GBooks which may include older events like this. LibStar ( talk) 02:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Article could be improved, but the event appears notable. Mattlore ( talk) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar ( talk) 02:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep for now - Once this article is improved, then it would be under the WP:GNG guidelines. Matt294069 is coming 00:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
so are you admitting in its current state it fails WP:GNG? LibStar ( talk) 02:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
That is what I am saying so yes. Matt294069 is coming 05:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep As the second largest motorsport event held in New Zealand that year, notability should not be in question. That the article fails to illustrate this point is the problem. -- Falcadore ( talk) 23:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Anne-Margaretha (ship, 2000)

Anne-Margaretha (ship, 2000) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a newer single commercial ship that can be rented for travel. The article follows the business history of the boat. There is no indication or reference why this particular yacht would be notable. gidonb ( talk) 16:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The article was created by one of the operators of the boat, his sole contributions ever to Wikipedia under this new user. User created the same promotion also in Dutch and French. I had prodded the English-language article, but this was removed, without significant improvements. gidonb ( talk) 16:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There's nothing on this ship on the Internet. Not a single news article or webpage covering the ship. The current article reads like a product manual and I don't see room for improvement. Elaenia ( talk) 02:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Grease (musical).  Sandstein  20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Look at Me, I'm Sandra Dee

Look at Me, I'm Sandra Dee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable stub of an article about an old song. Quis separabit? 15:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. All that the article contains is a plot synopsis of when the song is sung in the film. There is nothing about the song whatsoever; not the names of the actors, not the name of the songwriters, nothing on the lyrical content and nothing on the musical content. Every song in every musical does not need to exist, nor be a redirect. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 15:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Grease (movie). I hate redirects but this is a lovely example of a case for them. I can think of over ten humans in my personal acquaintance who would find such a redirect meaningful and problem-solving from a memory level. If the movie in question was less notable than Grease (which, for the record, is one of the most hateful things I've ever seen and if I could eradicate it from the popular-culture universal consciousness I would do so in a femtosecond) I would feel differently, but this was a hugely popular movie, remains so among those of a certain age (and their offspring), and as much as we Wikipedians might shudder, this is precisely the kind of redirect the world wants. I'm just saying. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as above, but I think the target should be Grease (musical), since that (not the film) is the original appearnce of the song. Deor ( talk) 17:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Grease (musical) for now. "Lousy with virginity" is a highly memorable and often-quoted phrase, and I think a viable article might be written some day about this song and its sometimes controversial reception. (Examples are sprinkled through the "find sources" links I added above.) But there isn't much of anything in the article now, and a redirect is consistent with current AfD practices regarding such songs. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 18:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

American Double Deckers

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

Unremarkable company, appears to be more of a service agent than manufacturer of buses. Fails WP:GNG. Nordic Dragon 14:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as this is a local somewhat newly founded company with only the expected company information, nothing else to even minimally suggest better for the companies and organizations notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  10:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Robert Biswas-Diener

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

Tagged for notability since 2009 and primary sourcing since 2013, neither of which appears to have been fixed. Lack of reliable independent sources suggests this may not meet WP:GNG Guy ( Help!) 13:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sufficient sourcing to pass GNG such as CNN. Valoem talk contrib 03:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I am not (yet) familiar with Wikipedia notability guidelines and I'm planning to read them soon. For the moment, I would like to assure everyone here that Robert Biswas-Diener is one of the most prominent researchers in the field of positive psychology, itself one of the main current of contemporary psychology. I will provide substantial evidence about this soon. Let me know if there are specific needs here. Viybel ( talk) 18:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. An h-index of 32 would frequently be enough to establish notability by WP:PROF#1, but I suspect that this is a highly-cited field, and I note that his most-highly cited works seem to be coauthored with his very clearly notable father. Therefore, not taking a stance here. PWilkinson ( talk) 13:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Week keep I'm torn on this one. He has been cited nearly 6K times, but a lot of it is because of his father, and notability is not inherited. However, he has multiple works on which his father is not a coauthor, that have several hundred cites; so I'm going with keep here. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 03:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 16:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Coordinated management of meaning

Coordinated management of meaning (  | 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 think this article is WP:OR, it reads as a personal essay on the subject. I say I think because a lot of it is remisicent of Sokal, and is borderline incomprehensible. Guy ( Help!) 11:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As to whether to merge - consensus not to delete.  Sandstein  20:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Unique set size

Unique set size (  | 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 meet any CSD criterias, and with very little contents, unremarkable. 333 -blue 08:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Possible Merge? I noticed the other set sizes in the See also section. These all seem pretty unnotable and the articles are stubs, so perhaps we could combine all three into a single article about set sizes which details the three. Then we have the individual names redirect to this article. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 13:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • merge them into process memory, a ridiculously missing article. Howver all of them are unreferenced. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This appears to be an established concept with multiple independent and reliably published secondary sources. I added references to the article, which was previously unreferenced. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear following relisting. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Call of Duty characters

AfDs for this article:
List of Call of Duty characters (  | 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:VGSCOPE No. 6: a long list of characters, described from an in-universe point-of-view, with nothing on the development or reception of the characters. There are a total of 15 Call of Duty games, set in World War II, the Cold War, in the recent past and in the near future. There are very few recurring characters. Looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine shows no reliable, in-depth articles. That Captain Price and Soap MacTavish have articles doesn't mean all characters are notable. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep: I think we should keep this article because readers would need to read some information of some characters in that franchise. It's true we need more reliable sources for these information and we need some extra clean up about the development & reception of those characters, but it doesn't mean the article should be deleted. BattleshipMan ( talk) 08:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete list, redirect each character: Now that you've given a reason for getting rid of this, I agree that this list is unnecessary. However, I feel that each character listed should be redirected to their respective game article (i.e. Roach and Ghost each get redirected to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2). If this can't be done, then that's just fine. But in terms of this list, it's not needed, it seems. Aria1561 ( talk) 21:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as video game cruft, contains only plot summary, no independent reliable sources (let alone sufficient to confer notability on the topic).  Sandstein  10:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (or redirect to Call of Duty). (1) The characters lack sourcing as a group and are not noted as independent concept from the individual games or series. (2) The article, as it stands, is video game trivia. (3) Anything that needs to be said about these characters can be said in either the individual game or series articles. Proportionality. czar 14:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unreal (series)#Setting. czar 04:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Unreal characters

AfDs for this article:
List of Unreal characters (  | 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:VGSCOPE No. 6: a long list of characters, described from an in-universe point-of-view, with nothing on the development or reception of the characters. Looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine shows no reliable, in-depth articles. Redirect to Unreal (series)#Setting. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf ( talk) 16:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Montana Justice Foundation

AfDs for this article:
Montana Justice 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)

I believe there needs to be further attention since the 2010 AfD as none of this suggests a better improvable and also independently notable article apart from being connected to the State Bar of Montana. My searches found nothing noticeably better and my PROD, until I noticed the 1st AfD, was: "Non-notable group part of the State Bar of Montana with my searches finding nothing better at all and none of the current article suggests an independently notable article.". SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge: This is an independent 501(c)(3) organization separate from the State Bar, though with some affiliation. (Full disclosure: I am a member of the State Bar of Montana and am involved with activities that received funds from MJF so I have a COI as to this article). I'd ask that if the Afd succeeds that the article be merged with a redirect kept to preserve links. Montanabw (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per WP:ORGDEPTH this should have been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. From scanning news articles, I only see it mentioned briefly in passing, in connection with other topics. There is no in depth coverage of the organization itself. Similarly in books. Merging it into a small amount of text in the state bar article and keeping a redirect might be an option , I don't have much of an opinion on that at the moment. Thanks  —  Amakuru ( talk) 08:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    • To consider: [24], which of note includes [25], and [26]. As stated, I have a COI on this issue because I am involved with a group that gets MJF funding. But if you are looking for source material, it will be in the Montana press on groups that are funded by the organization. I would not object to a merge to State Bar of Montana, but could someone please userfy the content as a subpage of my talk or something if the consensus does go "delete" -- If no one else merges, I don't want to have to recreate it all. Montanabw (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Charitable nonprofit organization in existence since 1979. State wide organization. I agree with rationale by Montanabw above, as well as from those at prior failed deletion attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Justice Foundation including especially comments by Eastmain, Mike Cline, and TJRC, all of whom provided useful sources at the failed attempt at deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Justice Foundation. — Cirt ( talk) 16:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm going to reiterate my Keep !vote from the prior AFD. I do wish something more was done with the references that that AFD unearthed, instead of just nonspecifically slapping some of them into the "References" section rather than using them as footnotes to specifically point out what materials is supported by what source. But that's an issue for cleanup, not deletion. TJRC ( talk) 22:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Another recent source: "LINDEEN TO ANNOUNCE SETTLEMENT IN $455 MILLION CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OVER $1.2 MILLION WILL BE DONATED TO THE MONTANA JUSTICE FOUNDATION." States News Service 18 Sept. 2012. Academic OneFile. Web. 10 Mar. 2016 -- Mike Cline ( talk) 22:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The JBL and Cole Show ‎

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

Fails WP:GNG, article relies almost entirely on primary sources with few passing mentions in other sources. I nominated this previously and withdrew because RealDealBillMcNeal was determined to find sufficient sources. He never did and he never will because he is now blocked. A GNG tag which I placed after the first AfD was removed sometime after but the problems I brought to the talk page were never addressed. LM2000 ( talk) 03:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. LM2000 ( talk) 03:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LM2000 ( talk) 03:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - The page has plenty of sufficient sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 ( talk • contribs)

  • There's 41 sources, just because ONE of the host's facebook page is a source doesn't mean anything and all the other 40 sources are reliable. Plus, I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 ( talk) 19:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I still don't know what you are trying to say.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 16:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum

Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (  | 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 came upon this article after seeing linkspam promoting the text inserted in a couple of articles. The article's only two "references" for the book are commercial links to buy the book. The subject doesn't appear to meet the necessary notability criteria; the author himself also doesn't even appear to satisfy WP:AUTHOR or the general notability criteria. Quinto Simmaco ( talk) 22:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Per WP:BEFORE, I performed a few cursory searches for reliable sources discussing the text, but found only forums, organisation-related links, and the like: Google Search for the English title transliteration, Google search for the English title translation, +"book", News links- no dice there, and nothing significant on Google Scholar.
I'm sure it's read, and influential to some, but it doesn't appear to be cited or discussed by any source at length outside of WP:SELFPUB sources, including those related to his mosque and madrasa. The articles for the mosque and the author have been previously PROP'ed and are probably ripe for AfD themselves. I personally don't see the notability here, nor do I see any significant reliable sources materialising. Quinto Simmaco ( talk) 02:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep what do you mean by notability i think you need to read this WP:NBOOK Well 1st thing is this book is an authoritative and popular biography of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Its 1st Arabic version was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference in 1979, following an open competition for a book on the life of Prophet Muhammad. The book competed with 170 other manuscripts, in Arabic, Urdu, English, French and Hausa ( According to WP:NBOOK No.2 its an award winning book ).. The book takes into account various phases of the life of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH. The book provides authentic references which makes it more reliable and less controversial ( According to WP:NBOOK No.3 it is a significant contribution about Prophet Mohammad's Life ).. This book is translated in many languages like in English, Urdu, Hindi, French, and many others… if its not a notable book why they are wasting money on it lol... its not a NOTABLE because it took 1st prize in a open competition and it is very Authentic Biography of Prophet Mohammad..? anyway all i can say right now The article is poorly written only... no issue with the notability... Peace Out!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16A2:8A64:6000:BD7E:8668:1F5A:77E8 ( talk) 02:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply. Anonymous IP, I'm familiar with NBOOK. First of all, that's a guideline, not a policy. More importantly, The example you gave doesn't satisfy its criteria. The guideline refers solely to literary awards. Not to an award given in an internal and non-notable contest. The organisation you're citing is itself mostly notable due to controversy and their alleged links to terrorist organisations. Lastly, it would have to meet several of the criterion in order to be considered; not just one. Just because a book goes through more than one printing, or is widely disseminated, doesn't make it notable. Notability is conferred by sources, and is not inherent or self-evident. Quinto Simmaco ( talk) 17:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Sanjeev K Jha

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

All the sources don't mention the word "Sanjeev" . Two sources are fake URLs. Captain Spark ( talk) 03:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai.  Sandstein  20:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Parda Parda

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

This song is not notable. Captain Spark ( talk) 17:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested.  Sandstein  14:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The subject of the article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline ( WP:N), because no reliable source has been provided to verify the existence of this administrative entity. Borsoka ( talk) 07:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I am pretty sure that the articles were created by a member of that family (or by somebody who thinks that he/she is a member of that family). I think we need scholarly works independent of the subject of the article to substantiate its notability. Borsoka ( talk) 12:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite Zenhobo2's comment, the article has not been edited since the AfD nomination.  Sandstein  14:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Les Branson

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

Unpublished poet/novelist; non-notable indy filmmaker. Cited refs are a local-interest, local-man-stages-free-screening-of-film story and a mention that the film won a minor award; I can’t find anything else. There may be just enough claim of significance to pass A7. — teb728 t c 23:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I will add more citations and sources at a later date and edit in changes ≈≈≈≈zenhobo2≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenhobo2 ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete; deleted as G3 by Graeme Bartlett.  Gongshow    talk 10:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Stewart Bedford

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

Possible hoax, certainly not notable as a sportsperson, no sources. Grahame ( talk) 12:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 12:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested.  Sandstein  20:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Capital Femi

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

Another Nigerian local singer, trying to make ends meet. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 20:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 20:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 20:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 20:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Scout Stuart

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

WP:TOOSOON. Article on writer and director of short films sourced largely to non-third-party sources, sources that do no mention the subject, and passing mentions; a two-paragraph quote from her from ArtInLiverpool.com is about the biggest it gets. My searches did not find anything more substantial. Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Subject fails WP:DIRECTOR. Definitely a case of an article being created far too early. Cindlevet ( talk) 22:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
That's not a third-party source, though; that's the BFI promoting one of their own projects. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  10:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Guy Farley

Guy Farley (  | 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 a music composer which does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Searches are difficult but have come up with little to demonstrate notability to the point of inclusion. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 16:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 16:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 16:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 16:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 16:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 16:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources establishing notability have been found-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Gildo Bartocci

Gildo Bartocci (  | 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 artist which does not seem to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG Speedy was declined because the "french version could be translated" even though the French version was made the same day with the same reference and provide no further indication of significance or notability. My searches has brought up several auction links but nothing to prove notability. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 16:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 16:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 16:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 16:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Local artist with almost no coverage from another side, but coming from the pre-internet age this may be the case. Unless someone provides so real references from archives or libraries, I tend to delete. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 16:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Bartocci was a marginal artist at best, but there are some newspaper clippings on the website dedicated to him that may provide just enough to pass WP:GNG He fails WP:NARTIST One of the reviews from the Gazet van Antwerpen from 23 August 1973 mentions that he is not well known in the art world, and describes his little store, where he sells mostly decorative items. An other review, from 1966 mentions that the quality of his work is very uneven, but that he occasionally creates "… as if by chance or by accident, a very beautiful, even moving, piece". Mduvekot ( talk) 19:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  10:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Khanna Omarkhali

Khanna Omarkhali (  | 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 woeful lack of sources indicates that notability is completely lacking. Utterly fails to meet WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 10:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 10:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Dorpater ( talk) 14:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep The mere fact that the authors books were listed in the article Yazidis bibliography section before I even touched it demonstrates that this author is one of the foremost researchers in this topic (obviously, as a religion with less than a million adherents the subject Yazidiism itself remains obscure).
    Add to this all the Google Scholar hits [31] [32], and 768 Google Books hits to get the picture how important Omarkhali is in Kurdish studies.
    Clear case of AfD launched out of ignorance. Dorpater ( talk) 11:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
What those google scholar links show is that citations to her work are negligible. As for book hits -- go ahead and count 'em. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 11:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, and how many Yazidism scholars do have more citations? Could you name one or two? Even Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Kanat Kurdoyev) would need to be deleted as his number of citations is so much lower than Omarkhali's. And last but least, the whole bibliography section of the article Yazidis would need to be deleted by your logic.
The bottom line is: Yazidism is a relatively small ethnoreligious community which doesn't appear so often in the newspaper headlines, but that doesn't mean standard scholars on Yazidism should all be deleted in order to make room for American pornstars or Pokemon characters. Dorpater ( talk) 12:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Question. There are only two references on page. First only tells where she works and what she does. According to text, She is known as one of the foremost researchers of Yazidism in Russosphere [2nd ref]. What exactly this 2nd reference tells about her? Can you quote it directly, please? My very best wishes ( talk) 20:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
The second reference is to the title of her book. It doesn't support that claim at all. There appears to be no source material about her. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in present state. I would vote "keep" for the version of this page created on ruwiki and I will change my vote to "keep" if this page will be significantly improved. However, this English version simply does not tell anything of substance about the subject and does not provide adequate referencing. This is too poor quality even for a stub. We talked about several other similar pages created by Dorpater before. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • However, this English version simply does not tell anything of substance about the subject and does not provide adequate referencing - what is more substantial in case of a scholar apart from his/her main fields of research? Whether she is married or not and whether she is a cat person or a dog person? And unfortunately I would not be able to expand the article from Ru wiki with you guys, because not every sentence there has a footnote and you will immediately use it as a justification to disrupt me.
      Btw, both of you "Putin specialists", how come you all landed here short time after I had expressed views you disagree with concerning the article on him [33]. Sudden bout of Orientalism (never saw you editing anything related ever before) or something more eery such as retaliatory editing? Dorpater ( talk) 20:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
What else should be included in the page? Content that has been already included in the corresponding page on ruwiki. Here is link. Pages you created, especially BLPs should satisfy some very minimal requirements for stubs, especially if sources on the subject can be easily found by someone who knows Russian, as in this case. That's the point, and it is about improvement of content, rather than about anything else. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
According to your logic, the article on Richard Sakwa (just a random example) would also need to be deleted, as it only lists his most important fields of study and lists his more important works. Just like I did with Khanna Omarkhali. Just compare the articles. Dorpater ( talk) 22:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, I would definitely vote to delete page on Richard Sakwa. This page has no sources to establish notability of the person except his own publications. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure of the usefulness of the Russian version here: most of it is an academic CV in prose. Uanfala ( talk) 10:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
But there are useful segments there as well. E.g. this one: В конце 2005 года увидела свет первая книга Ханны Омархали (Усоян) „Йезидизм: из глубины тысячелетий“[24], выпущенная Издательским домом Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета. В ней рассматриваются основные религиозные представления езидов, особенности их вероучения и культа, описывается кастово-теократический принцип деления традиционного езидского общества, приводится терминологический словарь, прилагается перечень езидских родов. Выход книги был удостоен большой положительной рецензии на страницах приложения „Независимая газета“ — Религии».On the other hand, I can see no reason why an article about a scholar of an obscure field needs to be longer than a short introduction ('stub'). -- Dorpater ( talk) 11:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Dorpater ( talk) 20:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Dorpater ( talk) 08:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As the nominator notes, the relevant standard is PROF. There is some assertion of PROF 1 ("significant impact in their scholarly discipline"), but nothing verified. The book cited only says, "Currently Khanna Omarkhali, who was trained as an orientalist in St. Petersburg and is also an expert on Yezidism, is lecturer of Kurdish and research associate at Göttingen" and lists a handful of publications. That does not seem satisfactory. Maybe someone would like to argue PROF 7 ("substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity") or PROF 4 ("significant impact in the area of higher education"). Barring that, though, I would say that notability is not verified. Cnilep ( talk) 07:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Well that's an interesting argument! Someone who was listed (before I started editing) in the respective wikipedia article on Yazidis#Further reading (and the section is quite short there!) is not relevant enough for Wikipedia to have even a small special BIO article on her. Odd.
If this kind of logic prevails, I'm not inclined to even start an article on Philip Kreyenbroek (accidentally also Omarkhali's co-author) who is not only the foremost specialist on Yazidis in a special language sphere, but belongs to the absolute top in the World. Dorpater ( talk) 19:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He seems to meet WP:PROF as an authority on his subject, looking at worldcat his book Religious Minorities in Kurdistan: Beyond the Mainstream published by Harrassowitz, a German academic publisher of the highest prestige, is in 54 libraries -- given the subject, that's quite significant. His Kurdish reader : modern literature and oral texts in Kurmanji : with Kurdish-English glossaries and grammatical sketch is in 30, and according to WorldCat is the only important English language textbook in the field. Given the subject , that may be enough for notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Pcloudy

Pcloudy (  | 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. giso6150 ( talk) 05:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Gadi Shorr

Gadi Shorr (  | 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 karate instructor Gbawden ( talk) 11:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

*Weak keep I've found and added couple of references in Hebrew that supports what is written in articles. I am not sure what is inclusion criteria in marital arts, but by informal WP:WPMA/N looks like he's passing. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 16:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No indication he meets WP:MANOTE since he has not founded a significant style or published any significant martial arts books. He doesn't meet the notability standards for authors or musicians or entertainers. My search also didn't turn up significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG. Blogs, videos, self-published materials, seminar announcements, and passing mentions do not show notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment. Out of the reference I've added, this one [34] is a news site in Hebrew. But looking deeper, I probably change my Weak keep to Delete Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 19:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
To minimize confusion I have struck your previous vote. Papaursa ( talk) 00:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete My search didn't turn up significant independent coverage to show notability, although I'll admit my search was in English. I don't think the sources mentioned in the article show he meets WP:GNG and I didn't see anything that convinced me he meets WP:MANOTE or any other SNG. Papaursa ( talk) 00:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment Being a native Hebrew speaker I can add that searching in Hebrew, I found only one reference, I mentioned above that may be useful. All others are blog posts and invitation to seminars. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 08:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Fluentd

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

Promotion for non notable solution bombarded with interviews, primary sources, passing mentions and a non mention. Fluentd lacks coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Interim comment Wikipedia:Notability (software) has some good guidelines for assessing the notability of software products. I'm going to be checking the article and its sources against those guidelines in the next couple of days, but it doesn't look promising. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Actually, a search in books and academic papers indicates that this is sufficiently notable software, a fact completely obscured by the appalling referencing in the current article, and the promotional way in which it it is written. Examples:
  • This book ( Packt, 2015))
  • This book ( Apress, 2015)
  • This book ( O'Reilly Media, 2014)
  • An article in this book ( Springer, 2015}
  • Several articles on Google Scholar which have not been written by anyone associated with the software. Excluding any article authored by Matsumoto Yukihiro, Kiyoto Tamura, Hiro Yoshikawa, Kazuki Ota, Masahiro Nakagawa, or Sada Furuhashi, there are still at least 8. The snippets indicate that they are not simply passing mentions.
Voceditenore ( talk) 09:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Treasure Data

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

Promotion for non notable company. Company lacks coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete An IT company with less than 100 employees and circa 100 customers that has been trading for less than four years. For this to be notable, it would require a significant and substantial amount of coverage beyond a couple of PR driven articles/interviews in industry publications. This is not the case. In fact, it pretty comprehensively fails WP:CORP. Analysis of references:
  1. Interview with a company employee on the Linux blog, apparently one of the perks of paying to be a "corporate member", e.g. [35], [36], [37], etc. etc.
  2. Interview on Jax, an industry news website,
  3. Listing in a company directory
  4. Posting by one of the company's founders on Quora
  5. Video advert by the company posted on Vimeo
  6. Testimonials from the company's customers posted on the company's website
  7. Article/interview on Gigaom, an industry news website, publicity for the start up
  8. A poll posted on StackShare (See GitHub)
It's allegedly "best known for Fluentd? That article has even poorer coverage than this one. Note I have also removed all the internal links on the company personnel listed as well as their other product, Embulk. They all redirected to Fluentd but gave the false impression that they were notable in themselves unless you clicked on the link. Voceditenore ( talk) 16:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed, that equally non-notable software article has now been redirected to the parent company [38]. Wikipedia is full of articles on non-notable subjects, incapable of independent sourcing. That is never a valid reason for keeping yet another one. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluentd. It appears that the software Fluentd is reasonably notable, a fact currently obscured by the appalling referencing and promotional tone of that article. Does that make the company notable? In my view no, because the company came after the software was developed and uses it for their cloud storage and data analysis services, their chief business activity. The software (developed by one of the founders of Treasure Data) was released as open source in 2011. However, the company Treasure Data was still raising seed money in 2012. At this point, the company could be covered succinctly (minus all the padding, pointless (self) references, and non-information) in the Fluentd article, if that one is kept. Eventually, the company itself might progress beyond the stage of "promising start up", with multiple independent sources taking note of it. At that point, a stand-alone article could be recreated. But it isn't there now. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 15:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Senile Team

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

Promotion for non notable company bombarded with interviews, primary sources and passing mentions. Interviews are the company taking about themselves, not independent. Company lacks coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:17, 7
March 2016 (UTC)
Keep Interviews are used as situational references. There are plenty of references that are not interviews in the article. Including from big websites like 1UP and Kotaku.-- Cube b3 ( talk) 19:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

*Weak keep, there are a couple of WP:VG/RS sources (thank you, custom Google search engine) that are specifically about the company, but the bulk of which Senile Team is mentioned in reviews and articles about their work. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Which ones? duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Two interviews two be more specific, Destructoid and Nintendo Life. The rest just mentions Senile Team as "the developer of..." soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Senile Team talking about themselves, not independent. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Ah, I see your point. No, in that case there aren't any reliable sources. Changing vote.
That's how interviews work. A notable website found the developer notable and interviewed them where they answered questioned about themselves. It makes for a more interesting read.-- Cube b3 ( talk) 18:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Liz McGregor

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

Not notable as an author and does not satisfy the GNG. Philafrenzy ( talk) 10:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 12:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Enemy at the Gates: The Battle for Stalingrad

Enemy at the Gates: The Battle for Stalingrad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub, with refimprove tag from 2012 -- no improvements have been made since K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment -- @ K.e.coffman: notability is not determined by what is on Wikipedia (after all, Wikipedia is a Work in Progress), but on whether or not coverage exists external to Wikipedia. Can you provide rationale which points to why its not WP:Notable? Sadads ( talk) 15:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment, found this short but useable (for notability) review from Kirkus - "To retell the epic of Stalingrad is to enter a tough competition and invite many comparisons. Craig's narrative falls into that military genre which charges each moment with dramatic significance;" and "In short: a fine history of the battle among many previous fine histories." [39]; just need another one (or two?:)) for it to remain, otherwise redirect to movie Enemy at the Gates, with possibly a section on the book? Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't work a lot in this area but I thought I recalled seeing that a Kirkus review was useful for WP:V. but not for WP:N? Can anyone confirm or disconfirm? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets the criterion for book, because a film was made of it. Anyway, the book in in over 1700 worldcat libraries, which is an enormous number for non-fiction. They will be sure to be other reviews. DGG ( talk ) 14:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as this is all convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The movie isn't based on the book - they took its title and used it as one of the sources, but not the source and reports on how much they took from Craig's book specifically varies. ( This NYT article just mentions it as an inspiration, for example.) That said, I did find two reviews for the book in my school's database and the impression I got from these sources was that there were other reviews out there, they just aren't on the Internet for whatever reason. The Washington Post did mention the book again here, where they comment on the book's popularity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- The film will presumably be based on history, with this and other books on the siege as sources, choosing to adopt its title. I am dubious as to its merits as an independent article.
  • Delete -- as the original nominator. The author wrote three books, this one can be adequately covered on the author's page William Craig (author). With the comment above that the movie is not based on the book, I think the case for deletion and merging the existing content onto the author's page is stronger. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Muérdete La Lengua. Due to the lack of turnout for this AfD, I'm redirecting it to Muérdete La Lengua as recommended; however since there's a lack of consensus this should be treated as a "soft redirect" and open to future discussion. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 13:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Afortunada

Afortunada (  | 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 single. Emeraude ( talk) 11:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Emeraude ( talk) 11:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf ( talk) 16:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

We Belong Together (campaign)

We Belong Together (campaign) (  | 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. giso6150 ( talk) 05:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In addition to elsewhere, I'm already seeing significant coverage among secondary sources and noteworthy sources as demonstrated in the article, itself, at present, now, at this current point in time, and not needed to go into the future to find this. — Cirt ( talk) 17:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Raw Thrills (Music Artist)

Raw Thrills (Music 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)

Autobiography written by the subject for publicity purposes, using his personal record label as a username. Barely misses WP:CSD#A7 due to the weak assertion of notability of having "worked with" some notable artists, but I see no indication that having "worked with" them suggests prominent roles as required by WP:MUSICBIO. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 08:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per SK1- Any merges should be discussed on the talkpage (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Qumazani

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

There's already a far more complete article on this subject. We have Tatbir and don't need this one. Mhhossein ( talk) 06:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

8 Bit Mayhem

8 Bit Mayhem (  | 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:Notability. The article is written like an advertisement for the band and all the cited sources are dead. There's nothing indicating they're a notable band and their official website is a MySpace account. Jonny2x4 ( talk) 06:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 08:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Spencer Chan

Spencer Chan (  | 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:NACTOR. Most of his "credits" are uncredited. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Not notable at all. Too many uncredited roles. Cindlevet ( talk) 19:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

List of cities and towns in South Australia

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

This is an incomplete mess of a thing - it's basically a relic from before Wikipedia had a category system that somehow survived this long, and is the sort of area much better covered by categories now. A discussion back in 2005 failed to come up with a consensus about what to do with it - I think it's about time we junked it. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 05:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

  • A difficulty with the categories page is that any town that does not yet have a Wikipedia page does not get any mention except possibly within articles. There are numerous redlinks on this page that over time will (hopefully) prompt contributors to write new pages. But duplication of information, and inconsistency between the pages is not good either. Are there any suggestions as to how to show the list of 'other' towns? For example, is it appropriate to add redlinks to the bottom of the Categories page as "Other towns without Wikipages", essentially merging the two pages? A similar issue exists for Rivers of South Australia Hiraffe ( talk) 08:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The redlinks in this page are listed completely at random: there are hundreds of places without articles, but very few of them are listed here. Complete lists of gazetted places (including redlinks) are in the articles on South Australian local government areas, and do a much better job of serving that purpose than this article, showing complete lists broken down by region as opposed to a few random links from all over that've been thrown in here over the years. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Indeed I was comparing apples with oranges. I think it would be more appropriate if the list was broken up and towns were listed within the article of their respective LGA. After sampling a few of the non-metropolitan LGA articles ( Wattle Range Council, Naracoorte Lucindale Council, District Council of Robe) they already have a list of localities, which makes this redundant. Once we ensure that each of the localities is included in the appropriate article, I think we can delete this page.
For the sake of thoroughness, perhaps a separate discussion for each state is required to ensure no information is lost. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
That makes sense - how would you feel about deleting this and shifting that resulting discussion to an appropriate WikiProject page? I'd be on board with helping ensure the LGA articles get completed lists of localities - I'm already doing it for South Australia and partially did it for Victoria too but would be happy to make doing the lot a short-term mini-project. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 01:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
I would suggest sorting the LGAs by South Australian government region. This would allow the inclusion of localities and suburbs that are located in the 60% of the state’s area that are located outside of local government areas as well as the small number of suburbs/localities within the local government areas that have been excluded by the South Australian government for strategic reasons, i.e. parts of False Bay and Mullaquana. Regards Cowdy001 ( talk) 06:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)05:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; I don't believe that the LGA pages solves the problem. Firstly, depending on why a reader is looking for towns, listing by LGA may not provide a natural means to find localities. Having a dedicated list seems to have better utility than just towns being listed in an arbitrary location. A second issue is that many towns and localities are not in a LGA (for example, Innamincka, see http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/councilmaps) and not all LGAs have a Wikipage (e.g. Whyalla City Council). Listing localities under LGAs is only useful for those who know which LGAs to look under or who happen to be looking at the LGA for some reason. Also, for some LGAs, their page will become cluttered by numerous localities if the list is to be complete; and if not complete then where is the ‘complete’ list to be? Looking at List of localities in Victoria (Australia), it does seem that a simple populated list like this loses its value as there is no context. Suggest that it would be best to develop this page properly (as towns and localities) to be a decent summary table including perhaps name, LGA and/or region, population, settlement date, comments/notes. List of cities and towns in Arkansas is a reasonable example, and offers the ability to sort by the different headings. Perhaps the Category page is actually the redundant one as a separate list page gives better opportunity to customise (e.g. to introduce with sub-lists of largest towns, oldest towns etc) rather than being only an alphabetical list. Hiraffe ( talk) 00:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Hi, I must respond to some of your comments. Firstly, I have found that the LGASA website is not a reliable source as its lists of places appear to be in some cases at least 15 years out of date. In respect to places such as Innamincka, please refer my comments above regarding the use of South Australian Government regions as a means of sorting LGAs. Secondly, if you wish to retain the option for searching a locality or suburb by name, I would suggest the renaming the article as List of suburbs and localities in South Australia and remove anything is not suburb and locality and add an introductory paragraph that includes where to go to find SA cities and towns (also please refer below). Thirdly, what is wrong with a complete list of suburbs and localities for LGA - I have recently done this for the Kangaroo Island Council, City of Whyalla and others? Should not the WP be comprehensive? Fourthly, Whyalla City Council does have an article, i.e. City of Whyalla. I know of its existence because I recently edited it. Finally, I would like to emphasis and add to what has been stated above, “towns” in SA no longer officially exist and now are part of either suburbs or localities. Also as far as I am aware, the term ‘city’ in SA refers to a LGA whose population has reached a particular level at which its name is changed to include the word ‘city’. I remember being told about this in primary school; however, I have not able to find a online source to cite. Regards Cowdy001 ( talk) 06:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Apart from other issues, it's just a substituted category. Perhaps allow recreation in a better, tablified form.  Sandstein  20:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)☻ reply
  • Keep Standard list. The terminology may not be exact, but it is what people are likely to look for, DGG ( talk )
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Datafari

Datafari (  | 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:N: Non-notable software suite. Despite the claim of an award, the notability of Datafari is not borne out in the sources. 63 ghits is not a good sign for an open-source software project. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 23:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 23:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 23:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply
— Note to closing admin: Eirmag ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I was able to find a few pages mentioning the project, largely in French, but upon closer inspection they're either passing mentions or press releases. I fail to see how this is notable enough for inclusion. Elaenia ( talk) 01:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Nazeer Ahmed (space scientist)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the links presented are non-notable organisations, passing mentions and patent sites. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 02:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Patent mentions do not constitute notability. Aeonx ( talk) 01:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

This article has been updated to incorporate the suggestions provided in this discussion. This page will be improved further to increase its notability. If any of you have any suggestions please do let me know. Thanks - Ahkhan01 ( talk) 13:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Paige Peterson (actress)

Paige Peterson (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)

Consider this a "test case"... Proposing deletion due to failing WP:NACTOR. While she has a decent resume, her only "significant" role was probably the one season on Hang Time. Oh, and she also posed for Maxim (but is not at their website). And while the article has sources, they are only local coverage ( Lawrence Journal-World) and tabloid (TMZ) coverage. Only gets the most passing mentions in Variety (barely), but is not mentioned at The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, etc. Bottom line is that Peterson is not "notable" enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, I didn't do that... But I think it's because Peterson has also done some Lingerie football stuff. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 14:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as prominent role in Hang Time for a year, as well as other cinema roles means there should be RS coverage, which I am still looking for. The sources in the article should count partially. Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment – @ Atlantic306: I have yet to see you vote anything by keep at AfD, and a lot of it appears to relate your misunderstanding of WP:NACTOR which clearly states: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (which Peterson clearly does not have). You would benefit by paying attention to the arguments other voters make, as you seem to be relatively new to this... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Don't know why this is under sportspeople, but the important thing is that she doesn't have the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Plus, all of the article's sources are from the local paper. Mdtemp ( talk) 08:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • See above: all the local coverage is from the same source – there is a lack of multiple independent (local) sources coverage in this case. Also, I'm not sure the local coverage counts for much in this instance, as they're all of a "hometown girl makes it in Hollywood" variety, which is paired with a decided lack of coverage in Hollywood trade publications, etc. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Adknowledge

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

Pure puffery for a small non-notable company. "Best place to work" awards are meaningless--most articles that cite them merely mention them, this has a whole section with that heading. The other material is about how it has been names a partner with various notable firms, which simply means that it works with their software. The WSJreferences says at the top "This story is part of a VentureWire series of profiles" VentureWire is a PR source, and totally unreliable for anything. At least the WSJ admits in frankly when they reproduce their material. The other material is of similar quality, no matter how much of it there is. DGG ( talk ) 10:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

    • VentureWire by the Wall Street Journal was not a PR source, as referenced above. It was the name the WSJ gave its periodic examinations of pre-IPO companies and their merits as potentially publicly-traded firms. Here's the WSJ's editor's note: "This story is part of a VentureWire series of profiles that examines venture-backed companies with at least $100 million in revenue, an oft-mentioned threshold used by investment bankers to determine whether a company is IPO ready." Note that the editors referred to the piece as a "story" not paid placement, a PR release or anything similar. SiliconPrairieFarmer ( talk) 19:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as although this has several links, none of it is solidly better convincing and although searches also found several links at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam, none of it is also convincing. Delete at best and restart if ever better, SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unable to find convincing articles/news reports to establish notability. Several of the links used are either press releases, primary sources, or simple "business information" posts automatically generated using publicly available information (e.g. Glassdoor links). Elaenia ( talk) 01:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's been sourced and expanded since nomination and Consensus is keep and that they meet MILUN & GNG. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 03:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Bangladesh National Cadet Corps

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

Unsourced promo. Doubt about notability as I can find few independent sources (with regards: in western script) The Banner  talk 12:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 18:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- The organization under the Defence ministry, which received its own department in the ministry in 2015 is notable. It is notable per WP:MILUNIT. National armed forces or branches thereof. Examples include Canadian Forces, People's Liberation Army Navy, Fleet Air Arm, Royal Marines, Special Republican Guard and United States Army. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 01:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 07:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. How anyone would think that a national cadet organisation established by statute was not notable is frankly beyond me. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps you should read the nomination: "Unsourced promo." And when you look through the history, you will see repeated cases of adding the promo, what often came close to copyvio. The Banner  talk 16:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
      • It also says "Doubt about notability...". Is it a notable topic? Clearly it is. If it's badly written or somebody has added promotional material that's irrelevant to its notability. Rubbish is added to many articles - that doesn't mean we delete them. We just delete the rubbish. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Miss Iran

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

Totally unsourced fancruft about a beauty pageant that might have existed before the "Islamic revolution". What poses as an official website in the infobox is just a link to a page with magazine front pages from the 1960s and 1970s, but no information confirming the existence of a current, or even reasonably current, pageant named "Miss Iran". Thomas.W talk 20:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 00:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 00:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Breeders. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Jim Macpherson

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

No sourcing to show he meets either GNG or NMUSIC. John from Idegon ( talk) 03:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete only if actually needed because my searches found several links but nothing convincing a particularly better article and it seems she may be best known for The Breeders so I would suggest Redirecting for certain. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to The Breeders based on notability guideline for band members at WP:BAND, "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Sources support that he's well known for having played with several notable bands, but from what I can find has not put out any solo releases or had a career as an individual musician, such as significant session work. TheBlinkster ( talk) 19:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Superior border

Superior border (  | 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 proposing deletion of Superior border and Inferior border because these pages do not help readers. My reasons are:

  1. Readers are unlikely to search for "Superior" or "Inferior" border without specifying of what
  2. A reader making this search will be unambiguously knowing what structure they want to know
  3. (Almost) every anatomical structure has a superior border, as do many others
  4. It will confuse search results to have a specific article which only lists two superior borders -- readers will be expecting all borders (which will be an impossible list to compile) and are better off using a search engine.
  5. If we have a precedent of disambiguating borders, we might as well create 5,000+ disambiguation pages for: Anterior border, Posterior border, Medial border, Lateral border, Deep border, Superficial border ad nauseum.

Therefore it benefits readers if we delete this article

Note that the current two links here are redirects. Tom (LT) ( talk) 03:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. -- Gimubrc ( talk) 19:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Wikipedia:DABCHEAP, there aren't really any negatives to having many DAB pages like this sort. I don't exactly what you mean by "It will confuse search results to have a specific article which only lists two superior borders" but again there isn't any reason why we can't list all of the examples if need be. WP:DEMOLISH If there is a significant over this page being misleading in some way or another, then I might change my vote.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 05:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep A quick Google will show that both 'superior border' and 'inferior border' are being applied to just about any anatomical feature - heart, brainstem, femur, oral cavity... however, the only instances where the terms are used w/o modifiers are with the pancreas and scapula. As such it does make sense that someone searching for the blank expressions might specifically want either of these, and judging from the frequency of the terms in the literature the likelihood is sufficiently high to warrant "highjacking" a general term.-- Elmidae ( talk) 07:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is clear. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Nancy Rotering

Nancy Rotering (  | 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 politician. Rotering is the mayor of a smallish city in Illinois (that happens to be a suburb of Chicago) who is running for the House of Representatives. Rotering has not even won the primary election for this seat yet, and the coverage of her campaign is all local. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 03:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Highland Park (pop. 29K) is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors per WP:NPOL, candidates in party primaries do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — and the volume of reliable source coverage here is purely the type of WP:ROUTINE coverage that a local political figure and/or a local candidate for higher office can always expect to get from the local media, with no indication that it makes her more notable than the norm for those non-notable offices. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat. Bearcat ( talk) 03:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN small-town politician. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep House of Representatives candidate (potential nominee, has received endorsements from the Chicago Tribune and Dick Durbin amongst others). Should be kept up at least until the primaries. If she is nominated, I would argue this is enough relevance to justify this subject's article remain. If she is nominated, since the 10th district is a historically competitive district in elections, she could have a good chance of being elected to the House of Representatives, in which case she most certainly would be important enough to have an article. I at least recommend postponing any decision until after the Illinois Democratic Primaries later this month. SecretName101 ( talk) 09:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment @ SecretName101: There are a lot of "if"s in that keep proposal. How about this as an alternative: if she is nominated and if her candidacy generates the kind of non-routine significant coverage required, then we can recreate an article about her, but since Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, we won't know that until it happens. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    • As yet unelected candidates, whether in general elections or in party primaries, are not eligible for Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being a candidate — if they don't already have sufficient notability for other things that they would already have been eligible for an article before becoming a candidate, then they have to win the election (and that's the full general election in November, not the primary.) Wikipedia is not a free PR platform or a repository for unelected candidates' campaign brochures. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN which some editors appear to be oblivious to. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." I am not sure whether or not she fails to fit this. For instance, as you can see here, there are currently 189 separate results when you search her name on the Chicago Tribune website (inarguably a reliable and well-regarded source). Additionally, in regards to notability outside of candidacy, her involvement/ association with the case between the Village of Highland Park and the National Rifle Association was written about in many well-regarded national publications, including in the New York Times. SecretName101 ( talk) 18:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Coverage of her campaign is not entirely local. For instance, it has been covered in the Washington Post and the New York Times. SecretName101 ( talk) 19:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Coverage which happens to mention the candidate's name is not the same thing as coverage about her. Bearcat ( talk) 20:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Lee Eun-mi (singer)

Lee Eun-mi (singer) (  | 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 claim of notability, no content. Subject of the article fails WP:MUSIC & WP:GNG. Donottroll ( talk) 02:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - She's song "I Have a Lover" has become an mega-hit throughout the country of South Korea. -- Kanghuitari ( talk) 02:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
This is not related to the inclusion criteria in any way. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
It is, if you read WP:BAND a nationally charted single is one of the criteria. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Nope, her single never charted on the Gaon Music Chart. Donottroll ( talk) 19:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Oh well, if that's the case, sure. Hardly a mega-hit. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
"I Have a Lover" is old song, not newly song. but Gaon Chart launched 2010.. -- Kanghuitari ( talk) 01:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Lee Eun-mi is very notable in South Korea. She hold 600 concert tours in South Korea. ( [40]), and she was awarded Artist award from South Korean Government ( [41]) -- Kanghuitari ( talk) 01:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep please. I'm just hearing about this well-beloved singer, but apparently I'm behind the times. I found this well-written bio of hers typed up under the "show more" section of this YouTube video of the song in question "I Have A Lover" [49]], and starting to verify the facts there, I found that indeed she performed at the USA Korean Music Festival for the years mentioned 2006, 2007, 2010. The unreferenced bio gives a lot of English language leads for a researcher like me that has to sometimes match English blog or poor source translations like Allkpop, Soompi, etc. to gather an understanding of the Korean language newspaper and magazine sources I do find. Just part of the challenge of adding more South Korean articles to English WP and duplicating those already on Korean language WP. I see this singer has a page there already. And I am especially interested in adding and helping keep pages with a connection to the USA, and this singer's attention here has piqued my interest!-- Bonnielou2013 ( talk) 03:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

P.S. Random86 just saw your note! How resourceful of you to play with the spelling of her names to gather these articles! Donottroll is keeping us busy this week! Do you want to add the information or shall I do it using your references?-- Bonnielou2013 ( talk) 04:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC) This one is very useful [50]-- Bonnielou2013 ( talk) 04:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Bonnielou2013, please use my references to improve the article. It looks like the article can be expanded quite a bit. The reference you found has a lot of information too. Random86 ( talk) 07:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks, looks good...now to find the time!-- Bonnielou2013 ( talk) 08:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Keep Lee eun mi is one of famous Korean singer. one of largest Korean website operates the section of lee eun mi and she achieve many award. so the articl of Lee eun mi has Notability that I think that this article must be keep.-- Berlinuno ( talk) 08:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)-- Berlinuno ( talk) 08:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC) [1] reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Lee Se-young (comedian)

Lee Se-young (comedian) (  | 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 claim of notability, no content. Subject of the article fails WP:ENT & WP:GNG. Donottroll ( talk) 02:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - She is main host on Saturday Night Live Korea, and she has also appeared as a supporting role in Reply 1988, and also she is regular member in comedy show COMEDY BIG LEAGUE. -- Kanghuitari ( talk) 02:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Ben (South Korean singer)

Ben (South Korean singer) (  | 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:MUSICBIO. She doesn't meet the notability criteria for music artists. Donottroll ( talk) 02:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - She released a lot of songs and albums. ( See), and also she was appeared with several music program include I Am a Singer and Immortal Songs 2. She is notable in South Korea, we can find easily that news article about her. ( See) -- Kanghuitari ( talk) 02:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - I have just started to add some information and references. I need time to research Italian sources, as well, as I found 14 releases listed on Italian iTunes [51] (and Italian is not my forté!). I believe her work as an OST vocalist, alone, warrants a page, and will work hard to try to bring it up to par. In South Korea, singers for popular K-dramas such as she has sung for, are revered, and the songs hit the charts, like the marketable K-pop ones. I see she has been on a popular singing show as well, and will look for references for that. As it was just listed, hopefully I will have time to make the page reflect her notability. Thanks!-- Bonnielou2013 ( talk) 04:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Naver, Naver. "Lee eun mi". Naver. Naver. Retrieved 2016-05-13.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_March_7&oldid=1142621576"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE