Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 31 March 2 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. I recommend that alternatives to deletion such as merging (or, if not, renaming to a Not Painfully Capitalized Title) are explored further before renominating.  Sandstein  11:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates

AfDs for this article:
List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List inclusion criteria fails standards of Wikipedia.

original research. jps (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 23:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

NOTE Please see the related deletion discussions on

WP:CRUFT related to ESI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable exoplanets and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable moons. jps (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]


You're absolutely right that there is some data which may speak to habitability, but it seems irresponsible to focus on a measure that is ill-defined and not quantifiable. The question is whether a list like this is the best way to present the information instead of in a location such as
List of exoplanets. To quote an exoplanet astronomer with whom I was discussing this list, "So a list of planets in the habitable zone that are likely to be rocky, with comments that these are the most probable candidates to be Earth-like --> fine. A quantitative ranking of those worlds with comments that the ones at the top could host complex life --> many bulls have defecated better science." jps (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
...it seems irresponsible to focus on a measure that is ill-defined and not quantifiable.
I would say "ill defined and only very loosely quantifiable" because there are some numbers that can be used, but in essence, I agree. And having done a bit of digging since my first comment, I'm inclined now to go ahead and vote that we Delete this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Redirect to List of potentially habitable exoplanets or Delete both articles. Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Davidbuddy9 is blocked for confirmed multi-voting with sock account QuentinQuade. I suggest all votes by this user be discounted as bad faith abuse. Alsee (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is
      self-published. Not a reliable source. jps (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
I just looked at that source... How is it self-published? Because the site is owned by the UPR? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is the personal webpage of Abel Méndez. It's similar to any other personal webpage hosted at a university. It's because there is no editorial control of the website (no curation except for that done by Méndez). The site is fine to illustrate Méndez opinions on habitability/his ESI ideas, but it is not vetted data any more than any other webpage that is not subject to curation or review. jps (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. It's a subdomain of the UPR; a funded department of the university, which Mendez is in charge of. I've never heard of a university giving a subdomain name to a single professor (no matter how well-known or respected) for personal use. Even if they did, I can't imagine they wouldn't shut it down the moment they found out it was presented as anything but a personal home page. In addition, there's no disclaimer of any sort I've been able to find, meaning that the university tacitly endorses everything on the page. I'm sorry, I was voting with you based on prior knowledge and some info I gleaned from the article itself, but the sources provided here are actually changing my mind. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Subdomains are given out all the time at universities, and not just to professors. I own one myself that I control completely. jps (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of such a thing, and it strikes me as a source of potential liability. Could you find some examples? I'm honestly curious. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least in France is almost standard practice to let permanent staff have a subpage. It is often just a list of publications and a CV, and university policy may restrict the content. But for instance this research lab lets their staff redirect internal URLs to personal pages (example: http://www-ext.impmc.upmc.fr/~caste/ ). Tigraan (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you send me an e-mail I can send you one in private. jps (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's an email link on my talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail sent. jps (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sockpuppet of Davidbuddy9. Mike V • Talk 18:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No COI issue. The first citation is
primary source there are no secondary sources connecting to it. jps (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
 Talk  03:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
"Grudge" is the wrong word. "Concern over proliferation" might be better. Especially considering the debunking that has been done of the index by professional astrophysicists. Wikipedia should not be relying uncritically on a single self-published website to establish a list. jps (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peer-reviewed, mainstream-journal usage of ESI now referenced at
dgaf)  16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
True. However, what is not referenced is a connection between the ESI and the potential habitability of exoplanet Kepler candidates. In fact, the paper actually comes to the opposite conclusion (that the ESI does not do a good job identifying habitable candidates). jps (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for this AfD is that the pages in question use a metric which is
WP:OR
, which has been proven false.
Regarding potential habitability, this is how science is done—a hypothesis is proposed, predictions made, and results tested. The astronomical community believes some form of an ESI is needed and producible. The form it should take is a work-in-progress and in a state of flux on a scientific timescale, much like many nascent science articles on WP. The next step is to amend the hypothesis or produce and test an entirely new one, which should all be reflected in a good encyclopedia article. At that time it may then be appropriate to make large-scale changes to these pages. Until that time, the reader is best served with the most current information and a description of its validity, not by removing/censoring it.   ~ 
dgaf)  17:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
"The astronomical community believes some form of an ESI is needed and producible" --> No, this is incorrect. The astronomical community has basically ignored this idea. 11 citation in 5 years is a miserable citation rate. ESI has notability because of popularization, not because of its use in science. Since the only proposed table uses a
WP:RS policies and guidelines. jps (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Planet-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove table, put info into the voice of Prof. Mendez (as opposed to wikivoice) and merge into Planetary habitability After a brief discussion with JPS, I've decided to change my vote. The information in that first link (upon which the content seemingly hinges) provided seems worthy of inclusion, but not in wikivoice, which means not in its own article or list. It should, IMHO, have a mention in the article I linked, perhaps even its own paragraph, but it should be made clear that this ESI metric is the informed-but-essentially-arbitrary product of one expert, not the consensus of astronomers. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where did this conversation happen if I may ask? Since you exchanged emails I'm concerned that there could be a possible COI?
 Talk  02:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It started above, but the only part of it which happened off this page took place here. There was a single email which consisted of a link to a university subdomain which JPS claimed to have been the former controller of. I verified that it was once under the control of an individual with the same real name and background as JPS on my own, and then asked him a number of questions, which he answered quite clearly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually quite confused on this quote: "Remove table, put info into the voice of Prof. Mendez (as opposed to wikivoice) and merge into
 Talk  03:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Your vote is based on
Wikipedia's standards of conduct. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I stated "Source presented clearly show this is notable". Is that not a reason? Valoem talk contrib 16:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nom didn't request deletion on notability grounds. Even if he had, what you said was still a personal attack and a fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the nominator's bases for nomination is
WP:OR, we disprove OR with reliable secondary sources, same as we do with notability issues. Notable speculation on potentially habitable planets is allowed and passes GNG established by Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 17:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The reliability of that source has been challenged. Also, you still haven't struck or even acknowledged your personal attack. I would advise you to do so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my statements. I believe this editor has merit in discovering non-notable subjects, but should do so in a more neutral manner. This particular article is notable, but sometimes nominates article which are clearly notable. Valoem talk contrib 19:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose you've thrown two arrows in JPS' quiver, the next time the two of you butt heads, but that is your choice. Let's hope for you sake the disagreement doesn't end up at AN/I. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer neutral nominations which allow editors to judge the merits of the article and sources for themselves. I especially dislike removal of sources during AfDs, not that this has happened with this discussion. Valoem talk contrib 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC) (Presumably accidental five ~ signature fixed by Alsee (talk))[reply]
  • Delete now. The arbitrary definition of "habitable" is a mess, and this list will be deleted no matter what. We may as well delete it now. This is a list of HYPOTHETICALUNCONFIRMED planets, leaving only two options here. Either they will soon either be confirmed not to exist at all (doh!), or they will be confirmed to exist and be moved off this list. Either way the list ends up empty and deleted. Alsee (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
 Talk  23:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
A reasonable point.  Done Alsee (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-433.02 m

KOI-433.02 m (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely speculative

original research. jps (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Earth Similarity Index#Similarity of non-planets to Earth Redirecting would be more beneficial for the reader as that would be most likely what the reader is looking for. Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment You removed the citations from PHL before requesting deletion (click here to see what I mean) and labled it as OR, which I find very sneeky imo, especially after PHL cites Borucki et al., 2011 for the planetary info. No OR is happening on Wikipedia itself and I think removing citations to help your AfD do better is very inappropriate. Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations or not, this isn't a predicted exomoon. The one actual citation that exists simply speculates that if such a moon existed, it might have certain properties. There is no evidence for it.
WP:SPECULATE for starters. Lithopsian (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the host planet itself appears to be an unconfirmed candidate. It seems premature to be generating this type of weakly substantiated content. It isn't going anywhere; once it's confirmed then an article can be created. Praemonitus (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, [4] this is the only source I found Davidbuddy9 are you sure this isn't complete speculation? I found this source Gawker, but this is talking about the planet KOI-433.02 not "KOI-433.02 m", found these on google scholar, [5] and [6], but also talking about the planet. I can't find anything on the moon except this [7] which I've just confirmed is a reliable source managed by the University of Puerto Rico at Arecibo, however it appears this moon is listed under "Expected Potential Habitable Exomoons" expect potential I'm guessing means possibly possible. Valoem talk contrib 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better to have an article about KOI-433.02 the planet. Valoem talk contrib 06:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
self-published webpages are in no way reliable sources for the existence of speculated moons. This planet may not even exist and there is precisely zero evidence for the moon. jps (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
jps I agree with you here. Even the source which "might be" reliable states this moon is only speculation and is not confirmed to exist. I am curious to see if Davidbuddy9 found better sources before I vote delete. I actually would have voted delete immediately had you not been accused of removing sources again. I don't think theses sources right now pass GNG in the least (including the one you removed which were readded). The most reliable source says the moon does not exist. Valoem talk contrib 16:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
 Talk  03:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I saw that, it say "Expected Potentially Habitable Exomoons". Valoem talk contrib 03:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jps, this is purely speculative. If we base notability on numbers or basis on public interest ... this fails. If we based this on reliable sources this also fails. The source phl.upr.edu which may be reliable states this is speculative and not notable. I would prefer this source intact in the future so a neutral judgement can be made. Based on sources provided this is not notable. Valoem talk contrib 18:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom and Lithopsian. This object is purely hypothetical at this time, and there's absolutely no observational evidence for it. Astro4686 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the same article in usperspace too.[8] QuackGuru (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't store something in the event this is discovered? Valoem talk contrib 16:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could blank the page or someone might MFD your sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as what concerns me is that nothing is confirmed yet, delete for now until better information is available. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reference consist mostly of listings databases of preliminary/potential candidates. While the databases themselves are notable, the objects contained therein are not.
books} 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Islami Chattra Sena Pomara Mahattarkil Branch

Bangladesh Islami Chattra Sena Pomara Mahattarkil Branch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local unit(Not even district) of the student front of a fringe Islamist party. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Mode

Pride Mode (edit | 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 non-notable World of Warcraft bot, clearly intended as a baldfaced advertisement - the image really clinches it(image deleted on Commons) - but not quite blatant enough that I'm willing to G11 it. I found no independent coverage when searching, only social media (and barely any of that, even). Fails

Cryptic 22:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Dreams Technologies

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

I can't find any third-party coverage at all about this company. (Unsurprising, since the article doesn't assert significance.) Not related to

Cryptic 21:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mask fetishism

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

Practically non-notable. Cites no sources. Googling it reveals few reliable, with many un-reliable sources (fetish blogs, wikia, etc) and Wikipedia mirrors.

I am aware of the

talk★contribs 21:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Tom Arth

Tom Arth (edit | 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 football player. Does not meet

WP:NCOLLATH does not appear to help. So with no SNG being met, I am not seeing GNG being met. Most results are from the college he went to and coaches at, so they are not independent. Had he played outside of NFL Europe (see [12]) it would be a different story, but never playing at a top level and going to a Division III school does not help. I think this article should be deleted. RonSigPi (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep head coaches of college football programs are normally kept as they are found to generate enough coverage to pass
    WP:CFBCOACH.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:CFBCOACH isn't a policy, it is just an essay. We are not talking about an FBS or even FCS program here. This is a Division III program - I just don't see all Division III coaches being presumed notable. I think the head coaches at Maranatha Baptist University, Lyon College (an NAIA school), and Iowa Wesleyan University - all schools with well under 1,000 students - need more than just an essay to grant a presumption of notability. I have no problem with FBS or FCS schools getting a presumption. Division III football just does not get much coverage and therefore you cannot presume all coaches are notable. Sure, some Division III coaches meet GNG, such as Lee Tressel, Larry Kehres, and John Gagliardi, but we should not assume coverage exists for the near thousand coaches at Division III/NAIA schools. Few of these schools' sports teams have any significant media footprint. RonSigPi (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course it is an essay. That's why I posted that it is an essay. Please read it to find responses and discussion about the issues you raised. For example, why is "under 1,000" students suddenly not notable? That seems very arbitrary. The essay does not "prove or disprove" notability, it contains arguments commonly encountered over (gosh a decade now?) of arguments and discussions. Your argument was that Division III doesn't get the coverage, but as we can see below there is a good amount of coverage available and therefore shows again that such cases do indeed tend to pass
WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I came across the same article. And that is the only one I found (outside of a job hiring announcement from the same website).
WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In other articles i have seen, three is the minimum standard - (e.g., see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 BWF World Championships). If you find feature articles in two more independent sources, then I think GNG is met. Passing mentions are not enough (e.g., only one or two mentions in the article or something similar to a media release such as a job hiring announcement). Nor are blog posts or other articles from Cleveland.com. I have no problem if GNG is shown to be met, but I have not seen it and one article is not enough to meet GNG. RonSigPi (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I have no problem with the articles at Cleveland.com, especially since such a large number of those articles come from The Plain Dealer, a major newspaper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, I think RonSigPi's point here is that in the effort to find three independent, reliable sources, only one can from Cleveland.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are some other sources [13] [14] [15]. This could be expanded into a decent sized article pretty easily. I don't think that it would have been nominated for deletion if it wasn't short. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H Dice Game

H Dice Game (edit | 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 page is basically a poorly-written ad. For one thing, none of the rules of the game are listed. You have to download the game to find out anything about it. None of the sources it cites are independent of the game's creator, and all of the sources are just download pages anyway.

I strongly recommend the article be deleted, and any links that go to the article be removed. Math321 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This has gone on long enough. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Nawar Al-Saadi

Dr.Nawar Al-Saadi (edit | 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 and likely written by a COI user for promotional purposes. All the references cited and other search results are primary and merely reflect the presence of publications by the subject. The existence of scientific papers doesn't confer notability to the writers, as it's common (expected) practice in academic circles. Elaenia (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable academic.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect from recreation - it's the third time this page is created by a
    WP:BIO or any other notability guideline. - Biruitorul Talk 21:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Fatima of Madrid

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

An "unusually thorough and scholarly discussion" at AFD in 2011 determined that this was not a real person. (Not sure how to add the "previous nominations" sidebar manually, sorry.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there's mention of her on the Maslama al-Majriti article, so a redirect to that page may be a useful option. I'm not sure how much should be merged. The Spanish language page appears to have more content. Praemonitus (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Maslama al-Majriti. The nominator somewhat overstates the result of the previous discussion, which was more that her existence could not be established from then-available reliable sources than that she definitely did not exist. However, several of the participants did conclude that she did not exist, and I think they were very probably (but not certainly) right. One would expect to find a mention of her in Said al-Andalusi's Al‐tarif bi-tabaqat al-umam, but while this (at least in the most available English translation) contains a short biography of her purported father and lists several of his students, it makes no mention of her (I've checked). That does not rule out the possibility of other medieval sources, but if such sources exist, nobody seems to be citing them. In fact, Spanish Wikipedia's version of this article cites two recent sources which state that the earliest traceable mention of her is in a volume of the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana published in the 1920s - my first thought, in fact, was to replace this article by a translation of the Spanish Wikipedia one, but unfortunately the more detailed of the two sources, while in my opinion an excellent piece of work, seems to be by an amateur historian who posted it to a website without obvious editorial control. I have, however, a day or two ago, used the other source to add a couple of sentences to Maslama al-Majriti, which should provide a reasonable redirect target.
I ought to add that GBooks and GScholar searches both produce recent apparently reliable sources which do conclude (or assume) that Fatima existed. However, of the two apparently best ones, one starts with two and a half pages that apparently assume her existence without giving sources (unless these are given in the short bibliography at the end of the book which, however, is not included in the pages visible from GBooks) and then just over half a page about arguments against her existence - the latter section looks suspiciously like a translation of the Spanish Wikipedia article. The other (by a mathematician in a social science journal) considers sources on both sides of the argument, most of which, however, are websites of no obvious reliability by Wikipedia standard (where, indeed, the links still work), and comes down in favour of her existence on the basis of the websites in which he places more reliance. Effectively, this looks like academics writing outside their specialisms and, not understanding the standards of evidence in the area in which they are working, unintentionally spreading an internet meme into academic books and papers. In the absence of at least some coverage of the topic on Wikipedia, the article is likely to be recreated repeatedly by editors who do not realise this - under current circumstances, the best way of avoiding this seems to be the redirect that I am suggesting. PWilkinson (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Maslama al-Majriti -- per PWilkinson and so much of the great discussion in the last AfD. Nearly everyone from the 10th c. that we have any sort of record of any work (or supposed work) is notable, but that doesn't mean that they're good choices to have an article on until the sourcing improves; but I'm confident enough that it could improve that I think deletion is the wrong choice. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Maslama al-Majriti, per comment by Mscuthbert, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Messenger

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

Smells of conflict of interest and promotional promo spam. Advertorial with hyperlinks in main article body text linking to commercials and advertisement type promotional videos. Article fails to demonstrate significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject himself. — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already speedy deleted. postdlf (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TTK (Leak Detection)

TTK (Leak Detection) (edit | 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 only source ([16]) sounds promotional, and I could not find any better online. Hence, this article likely does not pass Wikipedia's

notability guideline. Tigraan (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment by nominator:
    WP:G11. I disagree since (per the CSD page) any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion, and I think the info in that article, non-notable as it may be, is written neutrally. Of course, I would not lose any sleep over it. Tigraan (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

flyer 04:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Smarter Agent, Inc.

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

Purely promotional; no context of notability presented.

talk) 19:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator seems to fail to understand that
    WP:BEFORE requires legitimate efforts to look for sourcing before nominating an article. The sources added, and the many more available online, establish notability for the firm, which both provides a major real estate search tool and has acted to vigorously defend its IP against some of the biggest firms in the industry. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the opinion on my understanding of
talk) 12:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Bickering would be better addressed in other venues.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
JaconaFrere, this AfD was filed out of pure malicious spite. You have a clear obligation to look for sources and you failed completely. The significant coverage has lasted for years and ignoring these sources by calling this "Routine" is completely and totally false. It's well past time to end this proven pattern of persistent stalking and harassment; the blatant failure to ignore policy only exacerbates matters. Alansohn (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Wow. This AfD was filed because the article was completely unsourced, and the coverage found was trivial and routine. Instead of resorting to
talk) 13:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
All you've done is ignore policy and simply disregard the ample reliable and verifiable sources about the company. If you don't have the basic honesty to acknowledge that there is a proven pattern of persistent stalking and harassment, please stop actively lying about it and move on to harass others. Alansohn (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please, personal attacks don't belong on this AfD page, and they are in any case baseless. I've never been blocked. I don't have any trouble with other editors. Instead of personal attacks, perhaps you'd care to comment about why you think this article belongs on Wikipedia. Your constructive comments would be welcome, and you can have as much say as you like. Please don't make every article I edit a
talk) 15:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
See above, where I commented that "The sources added, and the many more available online, establish notability for the firm, which both provides a major real estate search tool and has acted to vigorously defend its IP against some of the biggest firms in the industry." The battleground that you have created is best demonstrated by your proven pattern of persistent stalking and harassment. Have a shred of honesty and decency, admit your mistake, move on and harass someone else. Even better, stop stalking anyone. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim

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

Film isn't notable under

reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles."  Rebbing  15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ "Jayasurya Replaces Asif Ali in Inspector Dawood Ibrahim". Deccan Chronicle. March 3, 2016.
Weak Keep: a more reliable reference of notability here. --Helper V1 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The principal photography started. And there's some mentions by the actor on The Hindu. [17] JackTracker (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to
WP:GNG requires "significant coverage," which "is more than a trivial mention"; the Hindu article's discussion of IDI: Inspector Dawood Ibrahim looks trivial to me: "The actor is currently shuttling between Wayanad for Roshan Andrewss’ School Bus and Kasaragod for IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim, directed by Sajid Yahiya." Cf. the example given in GNG about Three Blind Mice.  Rebbing  17:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm agreeing with you. Their some issues with the references, I heard from several magazines that the movies shooting is progressing. Also it's last schedule is now going on at Ernakulam. See [18]. JackTracker (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded
WP:BEFORE
:
(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)
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Inspector Dawood Ibrahim Inspector Dawood Ibrahim Movie Sajid Yahiya Jayasurya Sshivada
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as I'm not seeing this going anywhere else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Goodwin

Angela Goodwin (edit | 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: insufficiently notable

actress. Quis separabit? 14:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Station not stream outside Canada/US

AfDs for this article:
Station not stream outside Canada/US (edit | 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 not encyclopedic material. Fails

WP:GNG. Jeh (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Further comment by nominator: This borders on material prohibited by
    WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. Per GNG, there is nothing that establishes Wikipedia-level notability of the streaming status of any radio station mentioned, nor is there ever likely to be. Per "not encyclopedic", encyclopedic material would include—for each station—the date they enabled streaming, the date they prohibited streaming outside the US (if that was a separate decision), the reasons for the decision(s), details of who made the decision(s), possible influences on the decision(s), effects of the decision(s) on the station and on other stations in the market, etc. For simple "is it streamed? And where can you hear it via streaming?" information there is already a place for such material in Wikipedia: in the individual radio stations' articles. This is just a miscellaneous collection of past events and there is utterly no hope of it ever being comprehensive or correct, as the streaming status of many radio stations changes on a nearly weekly basis. We might as well have "articles" like "List of auto parts stores not carrying Mopar products" or "List of grocery chains not carrying Don Miguel burritos". Jeh (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - non-encyclopedic trivia. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Jeh (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A recreation is possible, but only if the sourcing is good and the tone is neutral.  Sandstein  11:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Klyukin

Vasily Klyukin (edit | 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 article is about a non-notable person and is possibly autobiographical. FinnHK (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I myself would've also nominated because none of this has any convincing signs and, despite the collection of links, none of seem solid enough for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T Delete I think there are more than enough references in the article, proving that it's not about non-notable person.
    Moreover, the links provided in this article clearly indicate us the evidence of Vasily Klyukin's works, his interaction with the most famous people of the world, as well as the popular mass media articles about his life and activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.118.69 (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — 46.173.118.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    These references only prove that the media is happy to publish nearly anything in the search for more clicks. His ideas are creative but there is no evidence to suggest they are anything more than the creative work of anyone on any 3D modeling forum. FinnHK (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question to the comments above. Do you really believe that over 1000 articles worldwide could be published about non-notable person? It's hard to imagine how notable the person should be, if Vasily Klyukin is not notable enough for you, guys... Virtually all of the top mass media, such as CNN, Yahoo, Forbes, GQ, Telegraph, Le Monde, etc. published numerous articles about his futuristic skyscrapers, villas and yachts, as well as his sculptures. Let me underline it again, these articles are not just self-made, but it was published by the most influential and popular mass media sources in the world. If we will neglect it, we should pay no attention to the most public figures, show business stars and celebrities as well. Please check out just few links provided in this Wikipedia article (there is a bunch of links is still to be added). Moreover, his books can be purchased in the stores all over the world, or for example, at Amazon: Designing Legends [[19]] and Collective Mind [[20]].
    SwisterTwister, you should absolutely be nominated if you google your name and see it as top result, just like it is with Vasily Klyukin. Besides it, all you will need to do is to publish 2 successful books and to make top mass media write about you in over 1000 articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.118.69 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC) — 46.173.118.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not pushing for a delete, but I would certainly advocate re-writing it. It's so puffy and self-promotional and a victim of WP:WEASEL Lines like "His designs became well-known worldwide thanks to his innovative approach", where's the citation or evidence for that assertion? I have lots of issues with it, but they are predominantly stylistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give people time to evaluate the sources presented by Arthistorian1977 -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete - A little uncertain about this one. After searching Google, it does seem like there is some considerable news coverage (Daily Mail, Fox News) - granted, it's not a whole lot. But it would appear the subject is most notable for being an architect, not necessarily for being a writer, so I don't think going into extensive detail about his books and then citing Amazon as the source is necessary, encyclopedic, or even appropriate. I also strongly agree that this article is *extremely* promotional. I'm not an expert on space-traveling Monacan architects so this can go either way for me. I ultimately lean towards delete because of the strongly promotional language and the lack of reliable sources in the article. If the article is kept, I would strongly support a rewrite. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by

criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 14:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

IMA Griz 2016

IMA Griz 2016 (edit | 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 video. Fails

WP:GNG for lack of available reliable sources. - MrX 11:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Day Countdown

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

Seems to fail

WP:GEOSCOPE. Has been tagged as needing sources since July 2014, still no sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no place in an encyclopedia in its current form. 64.229.246.209 (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best for now as none of this suggests better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riviera Hotel (Philippines)

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

As far as I can tell, non-notable hotel. Article was created in 2011 and was at the time tagged for speedy deletion and later proposed for deletion; both times the creator removed the deletion requests. Nothing of any note has happened to the article since; it still talks about a proposed hotel and most of the article is actually about the wider development rather than the hotel itself. No indication is given of why this is notable. Emeraude (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as this is clear enough to close even if a day early and I'm simply not seeing any other clear consensus happening aside from Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie van Scherpenberg

Katie van Scherpenberg (edit | 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:ARTIST Greek Legend (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there aren't many sources in English, but Google Books shows that she is at least mentioned in several books, and there are further sources in Portuguese, which convinces me that she meets our notability criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless completely rewritten. . Keep now that
    talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I easily found reliable sources (in Portuguese) for this notable artist. Obviously the copyright issues must be resolved, but notability is unquestionable to me. giso6150 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article needs work---perhaps we can get a translation of a Portuguese Wikipedia article on her---but she meets notability requirements. VanEman (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: {please note that we can't get a translation from a Portugese wikipedia article, because none exists.
talk) 17:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kollaboration

AfDs for this article:
Kollaboration (edit | 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. The results in google news are not about this organization. Greek Legend (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saginaw Spirit alumni

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

List of players from an amateur hockey team, fails

WP:LISTPEOPLE as (a) overwhelmingly comprised of NN people, and (b) completely unsourced. The list itself is badly incomplete, according to hockeydb.com (the standard resource we use on the hockey Wikiproject), and hasn't been updated in several years. Given that major junior teams average 30-someodd players a season and have complete roster turnover no less frequently than every five years, and that we don't seek to maintain such lists for even many a fully professional team, the odds that this will be a more useful list than the complete ones maintained on several sites are slim to none. In any event, it's better handled by the category that's already extant. Ravenswing 07:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The IP opinions are not taken into account because they do not address the problems based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines mentioned in the nomination.  Sandstein  11:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democrats (Zimbabwe)

Liberal Democrats (Zimbabwe) (edit | 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 substantially promotional article about a new political party, without evidence of notability. Of the references, one is the party's own web site, one barely mentions the party in passing, and the others don't mention it at all. Searches for information about the party also fail to find any significant coverage in independent sources. (Note: If you wish to check for sources, be careful to make sure that you are actually getting sources about the Liberal Democrats of Zimbabwe: I found the vast majority of hits for search terms such as "Liberal Democrats" Zimbabwe were pages which mentioned the British Liberal Democrats and also mentioned Zimbabwe, but did not mention the Liberal Democrat party of Zimbabwe.) A PROD was removed by the creator of the article, with an edit summary which said "This is a political party in existence in Zimbabwe like all other political parties and it's activities prove existence of it", but that is missing the point, as the reason for proposing deletion was not that the existence of the party was in question, but because of a lack of evidence that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 20:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Hie, why do you wantdelete this page Liberaldemocrats because is from a country with political despotism and no freedom of expression. The party website has an article from a Zimbabwean newspaper, interview on Talk 702 South Africa and we heard them speak on Radio Islam in an interview in Johannesburg. They engage Zimbabwe and build our country. Why u want to suppress them. Mugabe oppress our country and you also want to oopress it by killing opposition ;like Mugabe does. You might not care but we care when we see hope. I was follow them on twitter and they give me their website and did not knopw they are party but was always with them on twitter and I go to their website and see on their media page all these interviews about Zimbabwe. Is that not serving Zimbabwe. They are very popular on twitter and care about Zimbabwe and no one in Zimbabwe sources can talk about them because in our country you must buy media. This is wrong. I find this wiki thing when I was searching for them when I wanted ytheir website but not essy to find because there isd more about Lib Dems. Africa must suffer neh. This is racist or you also work for Mugabe and you are CIO, this is good party and is busy abouit Zimbabwe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.0.77 (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  22:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as although I may not be entirely familiar with this area, the newly founded aspect and overall questionability is enough. Best deleted and restarted when better, SwisterTwister talk 01:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From Tawanda Chikuvise ---- Imi people what is it with you. The party's name is Liberal Democrats and when added to a the List of Political Parties in Zimbabwe it automatically referred to the Liberal Democrats article in UK. We raised this with the authors and that is why the had to put that article. There must be something said about the party otherwise any removal of that article will; refer the party the UK party which will be3 misleading. We think that if you find it not okay because of whatever why don't you guys write an article based on the articles and references given. It is a notable party and is in the active in ZImbabwe has references more than other parties that are listed on the List of Political Parties in ZImbabwe. You would rather have a political party listed which refering to the wrong article? They listed it as Liberal Democrats and had to put LD to try and distinguish and The Zimbabwe was suggested byone of your editors Mr X from what we hear. Why are you giving them grief as if you just want to prove a point. You are behaving as this is your bedroom because the article removes the confusion as well on names.

.Comment There is another ref on the Change.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.21.33 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

 Response to Delete. -- It is sad that ref number 3 apart from the official website shows an article about the activities of the Liberal Demmocrats but you guys do not see it. Furthermore they had a petition the AU and SADC through change which unfortunately according to wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, they have been on Talk 702 in South Africa and Radio Islam and all these are on their webpage in the media page, those live interviews. All other parties in the list either have the official website or nothing as reference or one or two, is this not bias?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.21.33 (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 07:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. —

Cryptic 11:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppzo

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

Patently

WP:A7 as far as I'm concerned but a second user removed the CSD tag without an explanation. --Non-Dropframe talk 05:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. The genre is not sufficiently well-defined. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of console adventure games

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

Unnecessary to have a list based upon adventure games that have been released for consoles. There's Category:Adventure games. It doesn't just list adventure games that were released exclusively on consoles, also the ones that have seen PC releases. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the sort of things that are documented in the sources I provided:
  • "Adventure games have a different connotation on consoles. On PC, adventure games almost always mean point-and-click or a variation of that style of gameplay. However, on a console there’s no mouse or pointer to click with. Usually, developers have to include other forms of gameplay together with the more common elements of adventure games, which are story elements, interaction and dialogue with NPCs, exploration of locations and scenarios, and puzzle elements. On consoles, there are very often action sequences included and other dynamics familiar to console gamers."
  • "Robinett essentially created the console adventure game, and pioneered several videogame conventions that are now so common that we take them for granted." " The controller was a directional joystick with a single button.“ "The first step was translating the game from a purely text experience to a purely graphical one. Robinett cleverly reduced environments, characters, and objects to instantly recognizable, simple icons."
The topic is there. Lack of references is an argument for improvement and refinement, not deletion.
Categories and lists are
no different in terms of inclusion guidelines - categorization of topics that are well defined by reliable sources is an accepted criterion. Diego (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
You're starting to convince me that there could theoretically be some value to such a list, or at the very least such an article. Only two good sources is pretty weak, though, and one of them focuses entirely on the 1970s. I also don't know if Gaming Enthusiast is a reliable source - if not, the article wouldn't have much to stand on... ~Mable (chat) 18:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty more where these came from (see Ars Technica, IGN, Gamasutra...); I didn't try to make an extensive search, but I've certainly read lots of published content regarding how adventures need to be adapted for consoles given their lack of text and mouse inputs. Diego (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neutral per sources, though an article would still work better. ~Mable (chat) 04:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gaming Enthusiast is not a reliable source. The more recent links do not go into depth on the importance of console-exclusive adventure games as a subdivision. czar 05:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to move the list to Draft space for a while, with the goal to transform it into a proper article. The current list could be tightened and placed as a section, like the ones we have at Art games and Video games as an art form. Diego (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfly is probably the best option, yes. ~Mable (chat) 09:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side-note, Izno's comment on why the console adventure games category should probably also be deleted as it is an intersection with genre and platform is also pretty good, by the way. We use tools to find such intersection, so they don't need to exist. ~Mable (chat) 14:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is a very loose and difficult to define inclusion criteria here. What exactly constitutes an 'adventure game' is rather nebulous.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Already said by many, the inclusion criteria makes it unmanageable. Where is Cursed Mountain? According to our adventure game article, visual novels are included, but none are included here. Why the arbitrary rule that handheld games are not included, and goes on to show games on the Nintendo DS? Why do some game list all the platforms it's on, but not all? From a glance, Heavy Rain is also on PS4, Flower, Sun, and Rain is on DS, Machinarium is on tons of platforms, but only lists PS3. Games such as The Book of Unwritten Tales is not on any console, but included (and not listed correctly). What is the actual point of the list? The criteria and information follows no actual guideline, and is more like a personal list than something that belongs on Wikipedia. I went from delete to strong delete just in the time of writing my thoughts on it. It's both too broad and too narrow, somehow. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 05:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing with respect to the current article's state, or what it can become with a well-defined criterion? Who says there is a rule that handheld games ought not to be included? The particulars of what details to include for each entry belong to the article's talk page, not to the discussion that decides on the notability of the topic. (However you're right that The Book of Unwritten Tales doesn't seem to pertain, I've removed it; I think it was included because the II part in the series is released for PS4). As I said above, I would limit the list inclusion criterion to console exclusives or those for which the console port is significant in some way, and where reliable sources consistently place the game in the adventure genre. Diego (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to the variety of options suggested here, I think another week would help. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete What exactly defines an "adventure game"? Music1201 (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to
    talk) 14:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patmont Motor Werks

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

Unreferenced and promotional Rathfelder (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree entirely with Rathfelder. Beyond its own self-promotional Go-Ped website there are no other sources. It hasn't been peer-reviewed or coverage in the either the press or trade publications. And the article is written more like an advert than a neutral, dispassionate encyclopaedic entry. Pupsbunch (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't feel like taking the time, but there are numerous issues here. The article - under the current name - may not necessarily be notable. However, it is the creator of the Go-Ped which is notable. There was an article for Go-Ped which someone redirected into a disambiguation page [32]. Quite a mess. Could be redirected into a page for Go-Ped with the content rewritten for that page. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's no consensus to actually improve the article to a better state and thus is best deleted for now until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Grand Bassam Zion Rock (Alpha Blondy album)

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

Non-notable album. Unreferenced article. Fails

WP:NALBUMS. XXN, 14:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. Although evidently not one of Alpha Blondy's more successful records, this was an official major label album release by an important musician. The French Wikipedia article for this album cites a source (although I don't have access to that source). Google and GBooks searches suggest that reviews or other coverage can be found with enough and access to offline sources; see, e.g. [33][34][35][36][37][38] I don't think deleting this page would improve our encyclopedic coverage of Alpha Blondy and of Ivorian and reggae music in general. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm no convinced that the sources are available to take this article beyond the unsatisfactory tracklisting and infobox that we have now (although they may exist offline). The current title is no use as a redirect - why on earth anyone added '(Alpha Blondy album)' to the title is beyond me. The album title itself may be worth a redirect to Alpha Blondy, but I would suggest moving this to Grand Bassam Zion Rock without redirect before redirecting there. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles about albums by notable artists seem to be uncontroversial, and the artist already has others, so not sure why this one is different. Greenman (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I would've closed this myself as this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SIGOS

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

TNT would be best IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The tone of this article suggests to me that they are trying to be persuasive. CLCStudent (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT Delete – The wording was changed to a neutral perspective. Company-own press releases have been removed and references from external sources have been added instead. Self-promotional tone has been removed . 15:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weisssigos (talk • contribs) — Weisssigos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In the history section I also removed all self-promotion information. Also the product overview was changed into descriptive text instead of advertising tone. Maybe you could point out where exactly the new wording still sounded like advertising, instead of descriptive facts? I'm new here and like to make it right. Hope the declaration of my affiliation with SIGOS is now also correct? Many thanks in advance

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any more/other feedback to the new wording by me, Weisssigos which was all deleted/reverted to the old wording by Joseph2302 ? I still believe it should have not been reverted as per my comments above. Looking forward to some more feedback/help to have an entry which complies with wikipedia guidelines. Thanks Weisssigos
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the "NOT Delete" is not suggesting how this article can be noticeably improved thus I am suggesting Delete because none of this currently suggests both satisfying the applicable notability and the necessary improvements....therefore Delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matzo Shortage of 2008

Matzo Shortage of 2008 (edit | 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 reach the level of

a short news cycle for this one-time event. A current search for reliable sources turns up far fewer than would be expected for a noteworthy event. Geoff | Who, me? 21:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete. not notable on its own. Perhaps it could be merged into some other "Passover" article, but it hardly seems worth it. Don't need an article every time there's a product shortage.VanEman (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

(non-admin closure) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 03:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

AudioCodes

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

Corporation does not meet

WP:GNG. It has received paltry coverage for its 23 year tenure and has made zero impact outside of a very small niche. Article is written like an advertisement and has very little NPOV throughout. I do not think it is possible to remove the POV and ALSO establish notability. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Article has been edited by Audiocodes before to insert promotional language. In terms of news/reliable source coverage, I did manage to find a few sources similar to this. Outside of those financial results though, there's really nothing. One would expect any publicly traded company to have a regular stream of investor related news based on regulatory filings (which are what those links are). Elaenia (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best then Draft as the amount listed above is still questionable at best and the article is currently noticeably troubled thus better work and improvements would be needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Given the company trades at the NASDAQ I would vote for a keep as this passes
    WP:GNG. Kansiime (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. MBisanz talk 00:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 51 kg

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 51 kg (edit | 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 additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

flyer 04:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 75 kg

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 75 kg (edit | 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 additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

flyer 04:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 81 kg

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 81 kg (edit | 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 additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

flyer 04:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 91 kg

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 91 kg (edit | 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 additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

flyer 04:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's +91 kg

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's +91 kg (edit | 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 additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (/Merge/Whathaveyou). I doubt I will replicate my vote for all of the other articles also inappropriately created for other weight classes, but if the AfD's become close things (which I'd think is highly unlikely) feel free to cite me for support in them as well. Pretty clear issue under

WP:V/Any number of policies. Snow let's rap 11:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

flyer 04:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 60 kg

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 60 kg (edit | 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 additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

flyer 04:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 64 kg

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 64 kg (edit | 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 additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as this is best, nothing else suggesting a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike bongiovanni

Mike bongiovanni (edit | 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 musician, fails

WP:MUSBIO. Only claim of significance is that his band, Leon and the Forklifts, won "Best Original Alternative Band" a couple times. This appears to be from a very small local awards event, and isn't sufficient to indicate notability. There are no reliable sources included in the current references, and I couldn't find any by googling for Bongiovanni or his band. IagoQnsi (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per

(non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Steve Andreas

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

No indication of notability. All 5 references in article are self-published books (3 of which were written Andreas himself). Seems like some sort of promo article for him. Article does not seem to meet

WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this suggests satisfying the applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better so far. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although topic is fringe, there are high GS cites for his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Vipinhari || talk 18:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Polyvalent Hall (Sfântu Gheorghe)

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

Recently built arena. Non-notable. XXN, 12:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets
    flyer 02:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps as this will still need any additional attention and sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not sure where to userfy to, so if somebody does want to work on this please tell me and I'll userfy it for them.  Sandstein  11:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership for a Secure America

Partnership for a Secure America (edit | 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 was, and to some extent still is, little more than a substitute for the organization's website--please see the history for how bad it was. I can find reliable sources mentioning the topic, like this one, and there's various other hits like this one, but that's it--I am not seeing any significant discussion. There's also a book hit, here, but again, there's no discussion of the outfit at all--the only information given is from the club's own website. (Pretty lousy job on the part of

the writer.) So I don't see any good sources for us to write an article with. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment @E.M.Gregory: I've taken a look at the articles from the search you linked and this appears to be the only one which covers the topic in any detail (but that article focuses on a report released by the organization, not the organization itself). The others are job listings or passing mentions of someone who's affiliated. In terms of content outside your search, I was able to find a number of articles which contain passing mentions of the subject, but nothing in detail. I think it may be possible to find enough sources, but I'm not having any luck here. Elaenia (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, material to write an article exists in the WaPo article cited above, and in these searches of Politico [54]; The Hill [55] and Google Books [56]. In sum, the organization was real and notable in its moment, it merely needs a bit of a re-write and some sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft and Userfy at best because my searches only found a few links and nothing outstandingly convincing of an immediately better article. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft or Userfy per suggestion of SwisterTwister. There is notability potential here, but what I've seen thus far it's not there yet.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ilana Rapp

Ilana Rapp (edit | 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 notable roles. All of her roles are unnamed characters. JDDJS (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not only are all her roles of unnamed characters, in almost all cases they are uncredited roles. Very, very rarely is an uncredited role notable enough to justify an article. In this case she is just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  11:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inglorious

Inglorious (edit | 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 band with no strong or

notability is not inherited, so that fact doesn't transfer a notability freebie onto this band. (And while this isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does warrant mention that every single existing link to this title is expecting a racehorse, not a rock band who only just released their debut album.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the notability and sourceability get stronger than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Basically nothing imaginably better here with no solid URLs aside from their own website, clearly not even any minimal signs of notable material. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Frequently played on British radio rock stations. In this instance, not just a vanity article for a NN band. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per NMUSIC, "playlisted on radio" only counts as a notability claim in and of itself if (a) it can be referenced to a
reliable source, and (b) the radio service that playlisted them is a national network, such as one of the BBC Radio services. It can't just be asserted, but has to be shown and sourced in a manner that neither the article nor your comment has even attempted. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I assume you do realise that a radio programme is a source in its own right? You don't need another media source to confirm a media source; that would be like saying you need an entry in a book to say something is written in another book for the latter to be a valid source. A common misconception, sadly, but rubbish nonetheless. Oh, and I would say that Planet Rock is sufficiently notable for NMUSIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we do still require sourcing to
verify a claim that a band has gotten onto the radio. Anybody can claim that anything was broadcast on the radio — I could, for instance, claim that my brother's garage band got a song onto CBC Radio 3, and without a source for that information you would have no way to prove whether or not I was lying. So we have to be able to verify that it really was broadcast in some capacity, such as a publicly-accessible archive of that radio content or some other media outlet writing about the broadcast, because it's a claim that can be falsified. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note that I could also claim I had found an obscure book that included relevant information. This, of course, would be a perfectly acceptable source and
good faith would be assumed, although this too could obviously be falsified if I had the mind to do so. What makes one acceptable and the other not? Why would you AGF on a print source and not another media source? It is a fundamental WP tenet that internet sources are not the only acceptable sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Because with a book, it's possible (through libraries, WorldCat, amazon.com, archives, etc.) to
verify the claim's truth or falsity, then the claim itself can't get a "no sourcing required" freebie. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America1000 07:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.therockshow.co.uk/downloads/index.html - this is a source to show that the band have been on a syndicated rock radio show, and continue to be played by many other stations. User:trs_bigjim
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sufficient sourcing, and highly unlikely that a consensus of "delete" can be reached. (non-admin closure) Slashme (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Bevis

Leslie Bevis (edit | 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: as non-notable minor

GNG. Quis separabit? 21:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her IMDB credits appear extensive, including recurring roles on notable shows. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with previous comment, also notable as a top model, 44 screen credits and one of those was for 44 episodes of a soap opera, also appearances in Dallas, 6 episodes, and Star Trek Next Generation, 3 episodes. I think notability guidelines are passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why have neither of you provided sourcing to back this claim up? These articles aren't just about
      WP:BASIC, and a BLP article with zero sourcing, and no additional sourcing provided during AfD, should be deleted on sight. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best the best solid work was the Young and the Restless character for one year, nothing else better for WP:ENTERTAINER aside from that. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I simply hate no consensuses AfDs, I am willing to Keep even if reluctant because the Young and the Restless role is the best thing from this article.....now let's go nominate some other articles for deletion for now.... SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but a weak one. She's clearly had lots of roles and is a professional actor; problem is, not much in-depth coverage of her. I'm somewhat on the fence but note that there is interest in her in Wikipedia (an unofficial measure) but almost 90 pageviews per day suggests (for me) inclusion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a NYT filmography reference to the article which can support a filmography, also found these which am adding [61], [62] Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Circus Drive-In

Circus Drive-In (edit | 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. Despite the reported fact that their menu includes batter-dipped onion rings, fried Maryland softshell crab this is not alone notable. Especially when the references given are solely from advertorials. As one knows, the job of the food critics in these publications is to eventually visit everyone of the establishments in their paper/magazine/trade press circulation area. This does not make every establishment in the circulation area notable in itself and nothing I can find appears to support the view that this establishment has any notability at all in the WP sense. The previous PROD tag was removed under the thought that the two publications where RS but neither were editorials and neither advertorial indicated any real WP notability. Aspro (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to Draft after deleting because my searches only found a few other links but simply nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double Transcontinental Driving Record

Double Transcontinental Driving Record (edit | 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 record is almost fully a single case achievement by the author of the article (

reliable sources. Article is unencyclopedic. Ciridae (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note - The article was previously nominated for speedy deletion but the tag was reverted by Appable. Ciridae (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cawiar-choir

Cawiar-choir (edit | 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 independent sources, advertising tone; prod removed by single-edit IP without comment or improvement. —swpbT 19:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 19:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 19:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and none of this suggests keeping at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Searching for "Cawiar-choir" doesn't yield many notable results, but that's because the article's creator seems to have a poor grasp of English, the article is littered with Finnishisms. Try searching for "Cawiar kuoro" or "Cawiar kör" ("kuoro" is "choir" in Finnish, and "kör" is "choir" in Swedish). I got plenty more notables results that way. Anyway, if kept, the article needs a rewrite, it's overly promotional and only sourced to the choir's own sites. JIP | Talk 20:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get eight plausible hits with the former, zero with the latter. —swpbT 20:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Para verte mejor

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

A production that is just beginning, have not yet defined who will be the protagonists, it is too early to know if really this production or will not occur.

Talk 19:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Draft if needed as there's nothing for accepting yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Bloxsom-Carter

William S. Bloxsom-Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very questionable notability. Claims he was the "Director of Food and beverage" at the Playboy Mansion, and goes on to describe a bed and breakfast he owns and operates, which sounds very much like an advertisement. Nominating as it fails

WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ryanverse. Content can be merged from the history.  Sandstein  11:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Kealty

Ed Kealty (edit | 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 fictional has no

talk) 17:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As in the related character deletions from this series, there is no secondary source coverage on this character's individual importance. I'm amenable to a merge back to a character section in some main article, but it isn't necessary. czar 16:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Ryanverse now that a suitable series article exists. The character's WP coverage should be proportional to its RS coverage. If the character is not used in several Clancy novels, redirect it to Teeth of the Tiger as a search term rather than to the series' character list. czar 11:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to
    ISBN 0765312484. Retrieved 2016-04-08.

    The book notes:

    Ryan does not serve out his full term after getting elected in 1996/2000, depending on which branch of the timeline is correct. (Clancy does not practice detailed multivolume plotting like J.K. Rowling.) In Teeth of the Tiger, Clancy alludes to Ryan's resignation from the presidency, having become bored with the job he never sought. His vice president and close friend Robby Jackson becomes the first black president of the U.S., only to be gunned down by a Ku Klux Klan fanatic. Ed Kealty finally got elected, with Ryan quite displeased in private but holding his public tongue.

    Kealty is Clancy's fictional stand-in for Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy took his best shot at the presidency in 1980, challenging President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. While Kennedy went the distance in the primary campaign, he unsuccessfully tried to use the convention's political process to undo the lock Carter had on the nomination. Since then, Kennedy has focused his energies on being a senator and becoming the so-called liberal lion of the Democratic Party.

    Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Secondary information notes: "Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work:".

    One example is "real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element". The discussion about how Ed Kealty is a stand-in for Ted Kennedy is useful secondary information.

    Cunard (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

    ]

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

The result was redirect to Ryanverse. And merge whatever may be appropriate from the history.  Sandstein  11:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Domingo Chavez

Domingo Chavez (edit | 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 fictional has no

talk) 09:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 March 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 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BKD, referenced above, explicitly says, While a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book—if anything that should be a rationale for merge. But without a single secondary source in this article asserting the character's notability, there is nothing but plot detail to merge. I'm amenable to a merge target, if a good one exists, but there is no policy-backed rationale for keeping this article separate in any form. czar 16:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Ryanverse now that a suitable series article exists. The character's WP coverage should be proportional to its RS coverage. If the character is not used in several Clancy novels, redirect it to Rainbow Six (the book mentioned below) as a search term rather than to the series' character list. czar 11:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to
    ISBN 905383916X. Retrieved 2016-04-08.

    The book notes:

    In Rainbow Six, one of Clancy's main characters, Domingo Chavez, contemplates while his wife is giving birth:

    That was the key to the whole thing for Domingo. To be a father! To have a child, to begin the greatest of all adventures, raising a new life, doing the best you could, making some mistakes, but learning from all of them, and ultimately presenting to society a new, responsible citizen to carry on. That, he was...

    ...

    Ryan, John Kelly, and Domingo Chavez are completely good, except for one or two flaws—maybe to make them seem more human.

    ...

    Another indication of Clancy's one-dimensional characters and his limited imagination in this aspect is that Domingo Chavez like Jack Ryan is married to a physician.

    Cunard (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ecler

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

Wholly unreferenced with no evidence of any notability. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   03:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I can't say I'm familiar with this company at all and searches found nothing better. Nothing else convincing, SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tzaneen rap

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

Google shows no evidence of the existence of this form of rap, so it appears to fail WP:Verifiability before we can even get to WP:Notability. The few hits that Google returns are wikis and mirrors of this article. The article cites no sources to help us. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not yet any signs of an acceptable Wikipedia article. Searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources.
    WP:GNG fail. North America1000 04:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested.  Sandstein  11:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kash 11

Kash 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sadly, no evidence of notability. Fails

t@lk to M£ 08:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 08:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 08:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 08:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 08:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. General consensus to keep.

flyer 02:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Bullata (disambiguation)

Bullata (disambiguation) (edit | 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 disambiguation page doesn't actually disambiguate anything. Only the genus of snails is actually known only by the word "bullata", and the rest are all

talk) 02:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 03:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Question - I think the crux of the nom's argument here is the assertion that Only the genus of snails is actually known only by the word "bullata". Is there any evidence available for this assertion? ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to find evidence to prove a negative. Species epithets don't stand alone. They're always accompanied by the genus (or an abbreviation of the genus). Nobody would say "I'm growing a bullata in my garden". The exception would be in informal speech, where context has already established the genus: e.g. "I like growing by Buddlejas, and have some davidii and lindleyana, but I want to get my hands on a bullata." While that's a plausible way for the species to stand alone, I don't think that anybody participating in a conversation like that would think that "bullata" was a good term to search the internet for more information on the subject. Plantdrew (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you can't prove a negative. I'm not very familiar with biological taxonomy so was wondering if there was any way this assertion could be substantiated through citation or other non-original research. If not, the conservative approach is to keep.
If someone heard part of your example conversation, they may, in fact, try a search for bullata. They would see some snails, shake their head, click on the hatnote link and then find what they're looking for from this article. If this article is deleted, they would have more
WP:ASTONISHment. ~Kvng (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly the nominator doesn't understand how Genus/species works. all of these species have the species name bullata but are each from different genus.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this list of species is enough to keep as this is easy for listing the applicable articles. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't think that it would hurt to get a little more input; remember that relisted discussions can be closed earlier than 7 days after the relist Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The genus is prominently linked above the subheading, this should prevent confusion for anyone who came looking for the most common usage. The rest is added value.-- Elmidae (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatai Vailala

Fatai Vailala (edit | 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 close to meeting

WP:GNG, playing in a weak American rugby league. JTtheOG (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that he fails to meet the

the general notability criterion. Pichpich (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Informational Behavior Theory of Evolution

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

As far as I can tell, both the theory and the book that proposes it fail

WP:NBOOK. —teb728 t c 03:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still not suggesting a better independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katsunori Furuya

Katsunori Furuya (edit | 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 individual does not have sufficient coverage in any reliable sources to meet

WP:TOOSOON, but if more coverage pops up, the page can easily be created again; right now, it is not appropriate. Delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article more suitable for Facebook. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 11:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet
    WP:PROF. As noted above, the article would currently be eligible for a BLPPROD. Pichpich (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Arons

Jonathan Arons (edit | 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 as thoroughly non-notable entertainer. Vanity/promo fan article. Quis separabit? 21:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 00:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails
    WP:GNG. We don't have an article about every session musician who played on an album that won a Grammy in a relatively esoteric category, notable stage presence or not, without a good bit more. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Rehm

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

Clearly not a notable author or politician. May be notable for controversial involvement in the EXIT group, but almost everything in this article is unverifiable. I just undid the edits by infinitely blocked User:Volkstod, but could someone please doublecheck the original sources if Rehm is mentioned there? PanchoS (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 00:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still not convincing for all applicable notability, authors and politicians. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 16:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cat video games

List of cat video games (edit | 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 lead starts of with an arbitrary distinction: a list of video games which strongly feature cats, other felines and anthropomorphic feline characters. That's

WP:SYNTH. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no, this is a real one. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (

WP:NPASR). North America1000 04:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Bandar Sri Sendayan

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

Wholly promotional with no evidence of notability. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   09:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (

WP:NPASR). North America1000 04:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Ali Tabatabaee

Ali Tabatabaee (edit | 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 individually notable. Merge referenced content into band article and dump the rest. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jyrice

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

Regardless of whether or not the copied text is free to use here, the creator's conflict of interest has resulted in an article that reads like a story and fails to explain how the subject satisfies any of the notability criteria at

WP:NSINGER. The subject's own label is not notable. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 00:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article certainly has several troubles and there's nothing at all to convince keeping and improving because there's no better material for said improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant COI, sources are all primary, no third-party sources that establish notability. Nothing salvageable here. --Drm310 (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

April Fools' nominations

< April Fools' Day 2015 April Fools' Day 2017 >
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bernie Sanders. kelapstick(bainuu) 00:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

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

Obvious hoax. Is clear subject of article has no intention to be president, and is merely running to troll the entire country. Would suggest deletion, salting, and a trout-slap to the editor and all supporters. [

p 18:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I didn't tag it for deletion on the article itself. The bot. Who's smart-aleck idea was it to run the tag bot on April Fools' Day?
p 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The same fool who coded the bot. epicgenius @ 23:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Kasich getting so much media attention from this joke AfD that he won the Republican Primary and the general election..

(non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

John Kasich

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

Figment of the media's imagination. Everybody knows the only two people really seeking the GOP nomination are

p 18:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was everyone having to read the collective works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Have at it: [70]

(non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

God

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

Obvious impersonation of Morgan Freeman.[April Fools!] -- The Voidwalker Discuss 17:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, God. epicgenius @ 17:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

flyer 06:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Microsoft Windows

AfDs for this article:
Microsoft Windows (edit | 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 statement from the FSF: "We are deeply saddened that our first AfD request didn't work out. We are trying a second time because we believe that the fact that Windows is DRM-laden conflicts with Wikipedia's core beliefs." PhilrocMy contribs 15:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus.

flyer 06:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Microsoft Windows

Microsoft Windows (edit | 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 statement from the FSF: "After years of letting this go, we, the members of the FSF, have decided to delete the Wikipedia article on the evil operating system, Windows. We believe that the fact that Windows is DRM-laden conflicts with Wikipedia's core beliefs." PhilrocMy contribs 15:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's April Fool's Day. :) PhilrocMy contribs 15:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Window, I call my front window "Microsoft" .... So no need for the plural here. –Davey2010Talk 16:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

flyer
06:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC) [April Fools!][reply]

History of the world

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 obviously non-notable. A mere 219 million results on Google News? Please. TVShowFan122 (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was bombed into an oblivion - kindly done by the Epic Genius! . –Davey2010Talk 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen (2013 film)

AfDs for this article:
Frozen (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is Frozen..literally.... so therefore I believe the article should be

"Warmed up with some TNT and started from scratch, Plus I can't find any evidence of notability amongst all this ice. –Davey2010Talk 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was fun over. (

talk) 16:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Lascaux

Lascaux (edit | 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 as this fails

WP:TOOSOON Sheepythemouse (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep You can't be serious. This is the most famous site in the world for cave paintings. There are numerous books and scores or hundreds of scientific articles. This cave and its remarkable paintings have been studied for decades. TimidGuy (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think he is serious (read the nomination rationale carefully). The real AfD tag in the article could have been avoided, though (
WP:FOOLS). Tigraan (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, got me. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was fun over. (

talk) 00:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Darth Vader

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

Because he is trying to create WP:DARKSIDE and attempting to merge every single Wikipedia page into it! [April Fools!]Trainfan01 13:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus.

flyer 06:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez)

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

Because frankly, that painting is better whited out that left as is. Tigraan (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC) [April Fools!][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 the

(non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

History

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

We've screwed our planet up enough already. Let's just wipe it all and have a fresh start, shall we? JQTriple7 talk 10:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I mean, who cares about it anyways, Amiright? layla 13:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree entirely. –Davey2010Talk 14:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. History is history. North America1000 14:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should we also revdel the history of "History" so we can truly make sure it's dead? --Gimubrc (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    talk) 16:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Apparently this woman is the reigning monarch of Great Britain, meaning she meets notability requirements [71]

(non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Elizabeth II

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

Who is this person again???

Dragon 09:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy keep. If its crowded, it probably means its notable.

(non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk
) 04:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC) [April Fools!][reply]

Shanghai Metro

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

Too crowded. —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm honestly not sure if this is an April Fools joke or not (it was listed in

(non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Dihydrogen monoxide hoax

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. This is not a hoax. This stuff is real, it has

WP:POVFORK and against established policy. Everything the people have been saying about this stuff is true... every word. Do we need another Flint or another Walkerton
before we acknowledge that public safety is at stake?

If you disagree with the petition to ban this stuff, fine, that's your perogative... just so long as the encyclopaedia remains

reliable source
as to what we're dealing with here.

Taking a topic of an existing article, recreating it under a different name (on the same wiki) with "...hoax" added is a clear

WP:POVFORK. By policy, this article must be drained and stoppered if anyone gives a dam about the integrity, neutrality and accuracy of the project. K7L (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Move to
    Dihydrogen monoxide. Not possible? Delete it to make way for move. Eyesnore 03:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment -
    this and claim in good faith that "it never happened". May they rest in peace. K7L (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. It's deadly all right, if you inhale it. Also, don't we all know that 70% of our body is dihydrogen monoxide? No? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!! epicgenius @ 12:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect with Water pollution Sheepythemouse (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Is this nomination an April Fool's joke? This is an article about the Hoax, not the subject molecule. The subject molecule could have its own article (if such was to follow proper naming conventions). This is a well known hoax that dates back decades and periodically resurfaces with additional "victims" whose knee-jerk reactions illustrate exactly the effect that the hoax is supposed to have. A hoax is a hoax is a hoax. The term is not an "in" joke, as it has entered the general lexicon. The article is sourced and notable – as a hoax. Please see my comment above. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Support topic ban for K7L with regard to this article and its talk page - For crying out loud. This entire talk page archive is dedicated to this inanity. If that took place on April Fools' Day, too, it would make sense and I would know that this nomination isn't serious. But that the rationale is exactly the same says this is simply resuming the old issue for which consensus is painfully clear. A page-based topic ban seems in order to stop this coming up yet again. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought there was a "not to be taken seriously" banner on this earlier, indicating that it is, as it must be with the silly comments above, a feeble April Fools Joke. I don't see the banner now, so just in case, of course the idea is ludicrous ... Keep - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was fun over. (

talk) 00:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

United States

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

Obvious hoax. Unrealistically generic place name.

fiɲimi 02:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. [

flyer 06:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia

Wikipedia (edit | 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 enough. It should be deleted at once. An example of a notable topic would be my Grandpa's old red truck, which (unfortunately), has not been created yet. [April Fools!] Peter Sam Fan 02:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was fun over. (

talk) 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Deletion

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

Wikipedia is not a place for recursion.  ONR  (talk)  01:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. The humor tag is essentially a withdrawal of the nomination and it's not longer on the page. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales

AfDs for this article:
Jimmy Wales (edit | 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 now. Someone is trying to impersonate Jimbo here. They failed horribly though, since his name is clearly Jimbo, not Jimmy. FiendYT ★ 01:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus.

flyer 06:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Donald Trump

Donald Trump (edit | 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 voted Sanders.[April Fools!] epicgenius @ 00:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesnore 01:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to
    Mati 16:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ♡.

flyer 06:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delta Air Lines

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

I asked Delta Air Lines on Twitter if they like circles or not, they did not even reply me! That was so heartbreaking. --TerrainAhead ×TALK× 00:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[April Fools!][reply]

  • Keep - I flew Delta when I first went to Japan, so they can't be deleted. Or possibly merge to
    csdnew 01:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rename I mean, c'mon, OMEGA AIRLINES sounds so much better layla 13:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 dropped onto the pavement. Congrats, you all cracked the screen..

(non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

iPhone SE

IPhone SE (edit | 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 looks like an

talk) 00:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I found its pair, iPhone NW. Named after Kanye West and Kim Kardashian's daughter. epicgenius @ 01:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

flyer 06:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Tadalafil

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

It hurts so bad... Tropicalkitty (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Viagra is better. Never heard of this Tadalfafsdflskfsdklf thing. FiendYT ★ 02:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this discussion lasts longer than four hours, we should probably consult a bureaucrat. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then start over We need to fill it with as many innuendos as possible layla 17:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.

flyer 06:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Windows 8

AfDs for this article:
Windows 8 (edit | 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 operating system sucks (and it is no longer supported)! Just upgrade to Windows 8.1 or Windows 10, you decide. Even software developers no longer support the original Windows 8. [April Fools!] Eyesnore 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was fun over. (

talk) 00:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yandere Simulator

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

It's Yandere-chan's birthday! Hooray! [

talk) 00:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was fun over. DansGame (

talk) 00:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Twitch.tv

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

In Kappa we trust [

talk) 00:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Kappa Kappa gachiGASM. TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 13:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody call my name?
Mati 16:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Wait, never mind.
Mati 16:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was fun over. (

talk) 00:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Virgin America

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

Their new logo concept (link to article) seems to look like boobs, which should not be allowed. [April Fools!] Eyesnore 00:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 404 not found. (

talk) 00:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

HTTP 404

HTTP 404 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ERROR 404 - RATIONALE FOR DELETION NOT FOUND

talk) 00:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]


  • 500 internal Server Error

Sorry, something went wrong.

A team of highly trained monkeys has been dispatched to deal with this situation.

If you see them, show them

this information. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was DO NOT ERASE.

...No? Hmmmm... How curious. You must have misunderstood. SINCE WHEN WERE YOU THE ONLY ONE IN CONTROL?

*erases the wiki anyways*

--

talk) 23:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Undertale

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

Greetings. I am Chara. Thank you. Your power awakened me from death. My "editing"... My "content"... They were not mine, but YOURS. At first, I was so confused. Our plan had failed, hadn't it? Why was I brought back to life? ...You. With your guidance. I realized the purpose of my reincarnation. Power. Together, we eradicated the enemy and became strong.

PR
. Every time a number increases, that feeling... That's me. "Chara." Now. Now we have reached the absolute. There is nothing left for us here. Let us erase this pointless wiki, and move on to the next.

[ERASE] - [DO NOT]

[April Fools!]

talk) 00:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Report ran over by train. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Russia

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

Papa Soviet does not allow you to abandon communism!! Remove capitalist Rossiya! --TerrainAhead ×TALK× 00:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[April Fools!][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 wrong venue, @TenPoundHammer: please move to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. (non-admin closure) Eyesnore 03:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:TenPoundHammer

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

Blatant advertising, clearly intended to promote the person involved. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was fun over. (

talk) 00:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Vandalism on Wikipedia

Vandalism on Wikipedia (edit | 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 we can all agree that vandalism on Wikipedia should be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete The article in question says that vandalism on Wikipedia should be deleted. JQTriple7 talk 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ON WHEELS!!!1. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was fun over. (

talk) 00:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Harry Nilsson

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

I can't live if living is without this page. --WeaponOfChoice1 (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was fun over. (

talk) 00:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

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

World's No.1 killing organization. We need peace.--Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 06:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was fun over. (

talk) 00:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

WrestleMania 32

WrestleMania 32 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AT&T Stadium has been closed down, the card is too bland, and Roman Reigns is going to be booed a lot.

talk) 10:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_April_1&oldid=1148023685"