Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 2 April	4 April >

Guide to deletion

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 speedy delete as

(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

C0nvexity

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

Not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The creator's username proves this is an autobiography (and again it's not notable). — Music1201 ^talk 23:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND #9 criterion has been met. WP:BAND #5 criterion slightly met. Jltompkins10 (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winning the 6th Annual Horry County Schools Technology Fair would not be seen as a major award. On Wikipedia major awards would be things like winning a Grammy or the equivalent thereof. Local awards rarely, if ever, qualify as something that would even give partial notability on Wikipedia. The only time they do qualify for even partial notability is when the award winner gains some coverage for winning the award - something which I'm not seeing in this situation. As far as the record label goes, from what I can see the article states that you (I'm assuming that you are the performer himself) have released your album on your own label. While this doesn't automatically mean that you are self-publishing your works, it's not terribly far off from this and a major indie label would be one that has gained enough coverage in independent and reliable sources, likely enough to merit an article of their own. I don't see where you've gained any coverage at all. I hate that this all sounds so harsh, but I need you to understand why this article is up for deletion. Wikipedia heavily discourages people writing their own articles because it's so easy to see more notability than there might otherwise be and it's also extremely easy to take things personally. It takes a lot - an awful lot - to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia, enough to where the vast majority of musicians wouldn't pass notability guidelines. We've all seen situations where musicians can play regularly, but still fail notability guidelines because their only coverage were routine notifications of events. I'm sorry, but I just don't see where you pass notability guidelines.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Tokyogirl79: I was thinking that but wasn't sure. — Music1201 ^talk 03:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll go ahead and close/speedy the article/AfD.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Debate Tournament Resolutions

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

I fail to see any encyclopedic value to this, just listcruft Jac16888 ^Talk 22:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This list was originally part of the National Debate Tournament but was removed by someone because it was deemed too lengthy. I created a separate page and linked to it instead. It's the annual U.S. intercollegiate debate topic with thousands of students researching and debating it from a couple hundred schools. So, its not as if the resolutions are insignificant.

There are no sources and no context, nothing to suggest this is a worthwhile topic--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no better context and nothing else to suggest better solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Forgive me for being dense, if I am indeed dense, but the Wake Forest list of Annual College Debate Topics has not been updated since 2012. Someone needs to either find a current list somewhere, or restore the Wikipedia page that listed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.126.47 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemic (hip hop group)

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

No real sources or indication of notability Jac16888 ^Talk 22:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 09:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 09:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests any better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third-party sources whatever. This is close to speedy material. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Does not pass
WP:GNG. Mhhossein (talk) 11:22, 10 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 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Port 8789

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

The port in question is listed as unassigned. Other, much more prominent ports (80, 22) do not have their own wikipedia pages, but instead are referenced in List of TCP and UDP port numbers. At best, it should be included there. Plandu (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 22:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: port is not independently notable. As noted above, an entry in List of TCP and UDP port numbers is sufficient. No redirect required.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. — Music1201 ^talk 23:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nomination, more notable ports are handled without their own page. This port has no evidence of
WP:GNG notability on its own. Chris vLS (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as none of this currently suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the lack of notability. However, bringing up ports 80 and 22 is little more than
Port 22 redirects to Secure Shell. Tigraan (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the tip! Much appreciated. (FWIW, I did do a general search for sources supporting notability.) Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can't imagine what Wikipedia would look like if we made an article for every single open port that an application might use. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you can imagine that, unless you are singularly lacking in imagination. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 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 keep. consensus is too keep

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Paddy Murphy (Liverpudlian)

)

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

No indication of subject's notability, to the extent required. There were thousands of foreign-born workers in Liverpool in the period of the subject's life, and the only reason for this one to be treated separately are that he was a distant relative by marriage of the Japanese emperor, and he adopted an apparently amusing nickname. Notability is not inherited, and the nickname itself is of little intrinsic interest (the fact that it's "funny" is not significant). The few sources that mention him give little support to claims of notability. The subject was a local character of insufficient notability to justify an article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with regret since it's a funny piece of trivia. I can barely find any mentions of this person that would qualify as non-trivial per the
WP:GNG—a couple of local news obituaries, mentions in trivia books, and that's (seemingly) it. Apart from notability I'm also slightly concerned over veracity. I couldn't turn up anything from a search in Japanese. Admittedly I might be putting in the wrong queries: ~~the Silver Drum reference would at least be sound confirmation on that front, but I don't have the book—can anyone verify it/post the relevant quotation?~~ —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Strike that on the Silver Drum, I just noticed it's only cited to justify a claim about the princess who wrote it, not Murphy himself. Definitely leaning further towards delete in that case—without further verification this could just as well simply be a thing a Japanese immigrant made up. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wha? -- huh? Just three of the sources:

(1) Belchem is a scholarly book by Liverpool Univ. Press.

(2) Liverpool Gateway is a work on local history, not "trivia".

(3) Fritz Spiegl was for forty years a respected author and columnist (e.g. for the BBC's The Listener) on language and culture.

GNG's sigcov requirement is merely that " 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The coverage need not be extensive nor lengthy. Where little is known about a subject, little will be written, but the multiple sources that have written him up (at roughly 10-year intervals for fifty years -- sixty if you count a 1962 interview I've been unable to access so far) more than meet GNG.

It's not at all surprising there's no coverage in Japanese, since he spent almost his entire life in England (beginning before WW1), and the amusing name change does not, of course, add to notability, but neither does it detract. E Eng 22:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Belchem's notice of Murphy is a trivial mention (quite literally two sentences) sourced to Spiegl, and Spiegl's is in turn sourced to the local obituary. One would expect there to be at least some small notice in Japanese given the man's genealogy—I also note that I can't find any relatives of Princess Chichibu with the surname (native or assumed) of Yoshida for any permutation of kanji with that reading. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add: from checking the book, Connections – Liverpool Gateway is a "public art project" (quote from the foreword) comprising interviews with Liverpool residents, not a work of historiography, and the relevant part within it is a two-page interview with Murphy's grandson with no evaluation made of the claims. The idea of someone claiming close relationship to the highest levels of Japanese society simply turning up in England for unknown reasons and working menial jobs in the navy while not being present on any genealogical tables is possible but still pretty incredible—falling under the

WP:REDFLAG of "exceptional claims requiring exceptional sources", I would think. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Belchem's is not a trivial mention. Yes it's two sentences, but they're long and complex ones that succinctly summarize his life [1] -- and used, BTW, by Belcham to illustrate " 'the Liverpool That Was', a cosmopolitan heritage of Merseypride briefly embraced by Black Liverpool, until as Jacqueling Nassy Brown has noted, its history became as apart as its geography." Not that I know enough about Liverpool to have more than a vague idea what that means, but clearly it's a serious scholarly point. Belchem says, in fact, that Murphy "best personified" this heritage, so he's not dragging Murphy in just for giggles over his name, if that's what you imagine. And that Belchem cites to another secondary source is completely irrelevant as well -- not every source needs to have done original research from primary sources, and the fact that Belchem, writing for a university press, chooses to rely on Spiegl without qualification confirms Spiegl's reputation for reliability.

The Federal Writer's Project was also, to a large extent, a public art (well, cultural) project that very much relied on oral sources. So what? Most of what's cited to Gateway are exactly the sorts of things one would find nowhere else e.g. the scar, the soft spot. Most or all of the rest is in the other sources as well, but I used Gateway exactly because it was open access so others could see it. I guess this is my reward for that consideration.

Spiegl himself lived in Liverpool, and that he quotes from (reproduces in facsimile, in fact) the obituary doesn't mean the obit was his only source of information, and it's of no interest to us whether he lists them all, unless there's some conflict among sources we need to sort out.

There's nothing REDFLAG here. He was born a commoner -- a relative married into the imperial family decades later -- and died a commoner, so I don't know why we should expect him to show up anywhere at all in Japanese sources. We take the sources we have at their word. REDFLAG is for men from mars, cold fusion, and claims that appear to contradict known fact and common sense.

How about if we take a breather so others can comment. E Eng 23:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't born a commoner, though; Princess Chichibu's family on the male side is of the Tokugawa clan and her mother was of the Nabeshima clan, so he would be from one of those. Two sentences in an entire book, "long and complex" or not, is pretty much textbook

WP:TRIVIAL (though one sentence more than just the one, I guess!) in terms of not representing any contribution to notability. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Commoner: I was relying on

Princess_Chichibu

: "Although technically born a commoner, she was a scion of distinguished aristocratic families with close ties to the Japanese Imperial Family on both sides."

Textbook TRIVIAL: You and I must be looking at different textbooks, because the example TRIVIAL gives (as a trivial mention of Bill Clinton's high school band) is this sentence in a Clinton bio: "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" -- nothing at all like Belchem's coverage of Murphy. And the relationship between the book's quantity of coverage of the subject, versus the overall size of the book is irrelevant. You're acting as if coverage sufficient for notability has to be found all at once in a single source, which of course isn't true -- it's the totality of sources that matters.

The subject's story is a simple one, but one which has been repeatedly told in RS. Now, again, can we please wait for others to comment? EEng 00:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What he said. Reported by a number of reliable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it seems that he meets notability requirements, if barely.
talk) 05:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, this delightful article seems adequately sourced. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, Totally keep. reliable sources available. VanEman (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like, totally keep, dude! It's a radical article! E Eng 22:10, 10 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 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roseville High School Auto Shop

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

Article about an individual vocational program at an individual high school, with no credible or sourced claim of wider notability. The only source here is a

conflict of interest flying in two directions at one. None of this suggests that the course warrants the attention of an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: doesn't meet

WP:NOTRELIABLE. crh23 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that this program does not warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, sources indicate that it is a noteworthy aspect of the high school (e.g. [2][3][4][5][6][7]), and I would have !voted to merge this to the high school's article, but for the improvident fact that the school doesn't yet have an article. So instead I will suggest userfying this content until such time as it can be incorporated into an appropriate article about Roseville High School (Roseville, Michigan). --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources Arxiloxos cites would meet the GNG, I'm afraid; they're all fleeting mentions of the subject of the sort debarred by
WP:ROUTINE. That the auto shop is an integral part of the high school I don't question -- my own high school's vocational wing was an integral part there as well -- but I doubt it's any more noteworthy than its English department or football team, elements of high schools that don't commonly achieve their own articles. Ravenswing 06:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as a local school's local program, no signs of Wikipedia notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Arxiloxos that this article could conveniently be merged (shortened) into a future article about Roseville High School (Roseville, Michigan), but non-notable drafts aren't supposed to be left to languish indefinitely in userspace. If and when an article about the school comes into being, one would hope that the author of this article has saved his text privately; if not, I'll be happy to provide it for him at that time. But not now. Bishonen | talk 18:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 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 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USS Letitia (SP-398)

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

Cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per... article? It is a boat that very little is known about, as per the article. It couldn't possibly pass
WP:Copyvio. crh23 (talk
)

Comment. I see no evidence of any hoax at all, what gives? Could the ship be the first Letitia covered at http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TSS.Letitia2sistershiptoi.html? There is source North Atlantic Seaway by N.R.P.Bonsor, vol.3, p.1014 given there. That is a ship built 1912, converted to a hospital ship for WWI. It was wrecked near Halifax Nova Scotia in 1917 which does not preclude it being on the way to the U.S. The link uses "TSS Letitia" which uses the ship prefix TSS for "Twin Screw Steamer" which does not preclude it being a U.S. ship. The image at the link uses "HMHS" prefix for "Her Majesty's Hospital Ship" suggesting it was taken into British service, but conceivably it could have been transferred between services, starting or ending in U.S. service. [Update: From this source on Canada-related hospital ships which includes the image, it is clear that it was a British ship.] Or, as the current article suggests, it may merely have been considered for use by the U.S. Navy, per Navsource: in 1916 "the U.S. Navy began a registry of privately-owned pleasure craft and yachts that were available for patrol service in the event the United States was drawn into the conflict." Those ships considered are the ones listed at Navsource's "Section Patrol Craft (SP) and Civilian Vessels (ID) Index" page. And note at disambiguation page HMHS Letitia there is "HMHS Letitia (1912), which served during WWI", showing as a redlink entry. Which brings me to the following suggestion/vote, below. --do ncr am 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to HMHS Letitia (1912) and edit the article to describe the hospital ship (which is clearly notable: the link above, a chapter on it in a dive book, with interesting detail about its service at Gallipoli, and multiple mentions of soldiers shipped on it such as this. Let the Talk page show (including by link to this AFD), that there was a mystery USS Letitia listed in the U.S. Navy's register, which may or may not have been this ship. And I think it would be okay to mention that potential confusion explicitly in the mainspace article, too, perhaps in a footnote (simply stating: "In the U.S. Navy's register, there was a U.S.S. Letitia listed" without asserting any opinion). Handling the article this way keeps the edit history intact, giving credit properly if verification is obtained, and allowing future editors who might be looking for the U.S.S. Letitia a way to see what happened when the wp:SHIPS wikiproject editors were working their way through the Navsource list of ships, most of which are Wikipedia-notable. --do ncr am 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: Are you kidding me? There's nothing here to keep! Heck, I'd be fine with a A7 on the ground that there's no assertion of notability here. My suggestion to Doncram is that if he thinks there ought to be an article on HMHS Letitia (1912), he's free to create one, and blessings upon it. But I see no reason whatsoever to keep an edit history or attribute "credit" for an article with no meaningful content, with a subject that was a different ship in another country's navy. Ravenswing 06:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The principle of Wikipedia of giving credit to contributors through attribution in edit history is not to be so casually dismissed. Here there is some confusion, but it is clear that Mdnavman, who is still an active editor, identified correctly in 2010 that this was a ship considered by the U.S. Navy for use during World War I, and wrote carefully. The limited article said nothing incorrect. It never stated that the ship was in the U.S. navy, i.e. "in another country's navy", it said it was listed for consideration: no one is disputing that. Assuming the ship identified by the US Navy was in fact the hospital ship, which may yet be confirmed by additional sources, the move preserves edit history that was valid, and it avoids the affront of deleting an article created by an editor. In AFD process in general there should be more appreciation of work done, and more effort spent in preserving and developing rather than dismissing and tearing down. --do ncr am 18:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find this credit perfectly easy to dismiss, thank you. It's a garbage entry of the sort that brings disrepute on Wikipedia as a legitimate resource, and the only difference between it and (say) a promotional article on an SPA's garage band is its use of grammar and formatting. The "OMG we need an article for every possible item on this list" mindset has led us to such pointless entries as Mali at the 2006 Winter Olympics and Scouting in the Vatican City, "work" worth neither appreciating nor preserving. Ravenswing 21:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree mostly, and I doubt the creator of this article cares about this old item, and I think I overstated a bit. My general concern about AFD is more about when the contributors involved are new and/or they don't have a substantial amount of other contributions surviving. I don't mind if this article is deleted. Still I happen to think it is a tad better to convert it to become an article on the hospital ship, or to be a redirect to a section for it within a list (say a List of hospital ships?). --do ncr am 01:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is List of hospitals and hospital ships of the Royal Navy with no mention of it, I am adding mention now. --do ncr am 01:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft instead as my searches found nothing better and the current is still questionable for keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We might possibly want an article on the Royal Naval hospital ship, but this is about an alleged US ship, whose very existence seems doubtful. We should not normally have articles on things of that kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to I'm Not There. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grain of Sand (Fictional Film)

)

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

Article about a "film" which exists only as a fictional plot point within another film, with no

reliable sourcing or real-world context to demonstrate a reason why it would warrant a standalone article as a separate topic from its parent film. Wikipedia is not a fan site on which every individual plot point in a film automatically warrants its own separate article, and the only "sources" here are the parent film itself, and a review of that parent film which contains only minimal content about the film-within-a-film -- so this topic should certainly be discussed in the article on I'm Not There, but nothing here warrants a separate article about this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge into I'm Not There. Very little independent coverage of this "film within a film", and nothing worth putting in a separate article. crh23 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as it's actually not currently mentioned there and there's simply nothing to suggest an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Something to be careful about with merging is that a lot of this seems to be written from the specific viewpoint of the editor and as such, really comes across strongly as
(｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge cautiously into Tokyogirl79. Bishonen | talk 18:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Fictional Films. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 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 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B.C. (2013 film)

B.C. (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)

Fails
JudgeRM 17:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Quickly fails
WP:GNG for good measure. No independent, reliable third-party coverage, the IMDb page is about it (and is, of course, insufficient) crh23 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Speedy Delete~~ Where the hell is this movie? I'm looking every and can't find even a single source mentioning it. Clearly a
WP:HOAX editorEهեইдအ😎 21:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete Well, at least I now know it exists, its just so tiny on the notability scale. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. It's possible that this exists, but I kind of doubt it. It doesn't seem to have any coverage in
reliable sources, and the only results seem to be user-generated content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as no signs of any applicable notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a Syfy movie that stank so bad it vanished from embarrassment.
WP:NF failed on all counts. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, at least the Sharknado films are fun to watch, and are actually notable unlike this film editorEهեইдအ😎 22:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It exists. That's about all I can say on this movie. TV movie of very little note. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Er, how do we now know the film exists, again? But I'll assume it does, per above. Non-notable, indeed deeply obscure. (And a homicidal mammoth? No, no! Defamation of friendly creatures!) Bishonen | talk 18:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Per nom and comments. — Music1201 ^talk 04:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10.0 (rapper)

10.0 (rapper) (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)

Poorly sourced (relying entirely on social networking platforms and
reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability that satisfies one or more Wikipedia inclusion standards, must be shown for him to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources, no notability. Bishonen | talk 18:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. — Music1201 ^talk 04:11, 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 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Oliver Wilson

John Oliver Wilson (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 page contains no assertion or evidence of historical or other significance, and I couldn't find any either. The cited source may confirm his existence, but certainly nothing to rise to the level of
WP:GNG. Article was created by apparent SPA account, User:Johnwilsonisbae. Speedy deletion challenged on the basis that "Fighting in several notable battles is significant." Mojo Hand (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:SELFPUBLISH, a will or similar document, even one reprinted in a governmental index, is not going to be a reliable source for its subject's life accomplishments). Rebb ing 17:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: "Fighting in several notable battles is significant" is the sort of garbage rationale
worthy of a trout slap. By that token, one can reasonably claim that soldiers in most armies in wartime all qualify, millions upon millions. Obvious GNG fail. Ravenswing 07:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all of the above. Not surprisingly, there's nothing out there about this guy, just some author with the same name. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself have improved these types of articles but this one is still particularly questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should have been speedied. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly NN. WE cannot have an article on every veteran, whom somebody comes up with in their family history research. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 10 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 00:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 WGC-Dell Match Play

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

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

WP:TOOSOON Event is a year away and dates are not official yet. Article is basically a copy of the main article and 2016 event. It contains no info on the 2017 version. I tried to make this into a redirect but article creator reverted. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP There are a couple of things that need to be addressed here. Firstly, for special events that are held annually (such as certain golf tournaments like this one), it's common for a Wikipedia editor to prepare the article six months to a year in advance, and there typically not only isn't any problem with it, but additionally other editors usually help out to get it prepared as much as possible, regardless of the date the event is to be held. (This is the first time I have ever encountered someone being bothered with this common practice.) Also, this business of preparing an article up to a year in advance is done frequently in not only golf, but also auto racing, tennis, and the Olympics. Look at the Masters and other articles of its kind for this year, and you will find they were prepared a year in advance with no problem.

Secondly, it was of no surprise when we found who is trying to do this deletion. The user in question has an extensive history of years of arguing with Wikipedia editors and making their online experience quite uncomfortable. The user in question also has 8 blocks on their record and threats of several more blocks from administrators who are tired of their troublemaking. I fully expect that the article will stay up as it is, as there is no credible reason for it to come down, even with a redirect; if there had been a legitimate reason for the article not to exist yet, I'd not have bothered to create it at this time. And even if it is to come down, it will only be a matter of hours before it is back up again, as there are a handful of editors who are equipped with the script for it who will have no qualms about putting it back up immediately at their first availability. This pettiness and nonsense will not be tolerated. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAgain you start in with personal attacks against me without proof[9] and which earned you a week long block[10] over two years ago. Do you really want me to ping the blocking administrator so he can decide if another and even longer block is necessary?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter what the nom has done before, this is definitely
WP:TOOSOON. This page should be created only a month or two before the event, not a year beforehand. Sheepythemouse (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Raised eyebrow time: for an editor of
is this the hill you want to die on? Ravenswing 07:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: It's not an article, it's more like a template waiting to be filled in. Wiki is not a crystal ball. After (if) the event occurs then write the article, otherwise it's like putting the cart before the horse. The Results section borders on idiotic. Samf4u (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree it is
WP:GNG on that basis. - Ahunt (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to closing administrator If this AFD is closed as a delete, I propose that the article be SALTed for 6 months based on the article creator's threat (Quote- And even if it is to come down, it will only be a matter of hours before it is back up again, as there are a handful of editors who are equipped with the script for it who will have no qualms about putting it back up immediately at their first availability.) above to recreate the article [12]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as noticeably too soon. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roller Coaster Rumbler

Roller Coaster Rumbler (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)

Roller Coaster Rumbler violates WP:GNG Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Roller Coaster Rumbler[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 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 16:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep [13] is something, but clearly there were paper reviews [14] for example. This is an old game, sources will generally be paper-only. Hobit (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that (1) those mentions are reviews, and (2) that they exist? czar 13:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the paper if that's what you are asking. But yeah, I'd say that the abime.net link is believable--compiling things like that is what it does. Hobit (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple reviews referenced at Mobygames. -
n 18:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. Indexed reviews from reliable non-English languages publications (video game magazines). So sources do exist, but they're unverified, untranslated, and thus this article is very unlikely to be reliably expanded in any reasonable timeframe. czar 11:00, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Veras

Carlos Veras (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 few passing mentions are not enough to establish notability.
flyer 17:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this suggests any better signs of a better notable article, certainly not convincing for keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pretty poorly written article and sources (in the article) seem to mostly cover him as one of a handful. Ideally they would be covered as a group. His name is very common and so he's hard to search for. I suspect he meets
WP:N but I can't find enough solely on him to prove it. Hobit (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per SwisterTwister. I conducted web searches under several different terms, but the most I was able to turn up were some social media profiles and a few YouTube videos. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 22:48, 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 12:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Lequime

Bernard Lequime (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)

Leon Lequime (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)

Biographies, sourced only to a single local history book, of two brothers notable only as early local settlers and business owners in a single local area. Neither article provides or sources any evidence of wider notability -- and while it's not impossible for people of purely local notability to get into Wikipedia, it takes a lot more sourcing than this to demonstrate why an international encyclopedia should maintain the articles at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy ran the general store in a town. His other actions rise out of that fact. This is not enough to make one notable, especially with one book that is a history of that town as a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting better improvements and at least minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 10 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 01:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford International Relations Society

Oxford International Relations Society (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 notable event seems to be the visit of the Thai PM and none of the sources reference this society. Other sources are not independent suggesting non notability Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The presence of famous people doesn't confer notability and the society itself hasn't attracted much (if any) coverage as far as I can tell, so it fails
WP:SIGCOV (i.e. of the form Famous Person X said Y at the Oxford International Relations Society). —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 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 16:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly notable for a single controversy, it is still notable (see sources in the article). Hobit (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet none of the sources reference this society, they reference the college or the Thai Society. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: Agreed with Aloneinthewild. Could you be more specific on which sources? If this is in reference to the Thai controversy, as far as I can tell none of the articles even mentions the International Relations Society. —Nizolan ^(talk) 14:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails
WP:CLUB quite signally. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability and, at best, can be mentioned at the University's article. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Siddiqi

Kamal Siddiqi (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 failed to meet the terms of Wikipedia
^(talk) 07:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I don't see why journalists shouldn't have their own article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument for keeping. Journalists do not have inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person seems to be the editor of a widely read newspaper The Express Tribune. I searched a bit and I did find independent sources like [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] as well as passing mentions here [20], [21]. I would say the article subject is notable, but the article in its current form needs to be trimmed down. Keep article but trim. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So It would need additional sources as you provide and must be trim.
^(talk) 11:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now actually as the article is still questionable overall and the Keep votes are not confident enough to suggest this will be better improved especially considering the article's current troubled state. Delete for now at best, Keep only if it's noticeably improved and, if not, Draft instead for future uses, and imaginably return to mainspace when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The most informative of the sources cited by the article is the Global Journalist story,[22] which is half interview transcript and half capsule bio. The latter might be the result of research and analysis by the reporting staff, but it reads like the average self-supplied author bio. The rest of the cited sources are largely written by him. To this I can add only one piece from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.[23] It's a fluffy everyman story about his relationship with his teenage daughter, but at least it's about him rather than by him. These are insufficient to pass any notability guideline.

Lemongirl942 has listed seven additional sources above. The deepest is most of a paragraph in the Herald (Karachi: Dawn Media Group)[24] which describes the self-censorship he has found necessary in Pakistan. The rest are generally of the form "Kamal Siddiqi, editor of the Express Tribune, said" followed by a brief quote. More of the same type are available. The problem is that networking with other news organizations, exchanging quotes, and getting your paper mentioned seem to be a routine part of the job of editor. Just because a journalist has been quoted by a dozen different media outlets, doesn't make them notable.

Perhaps he can satisfy criterion #1 of
WP:JOURNALIST, "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Wikipedia itself cites articles he has written only 4 times. Google scholar shows a dozen citations spread over half a dozen of his articles. Google books returns many false positives, but if one further limits the search to after when he began his career (1990) and by the names of papers where he has worked, one gets 11 (Dawn) + 9 (The News) + 8 (Indian Express). These are not notable numbers. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:12, 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 16:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think every journalist deserves a page, but this guy seems to. I think it's more appropriate to keep it and add a banner asking for more references.VanEman (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seems notable? LibStar (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see
WP:VAGUEWAVE. zero attempt to explain how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
When the sources in the article meet the sourcing requirements of
Washington Post [27]. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. the supplied sources are not in-depth about the subject but merely confirm his role. Secondly most of the keep votes presented here make no real attempt to explain how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What most !votes do doesn't matter. That sources have been provided (both in the article and above) is all that matters. Just saying that "sources aren't in-depth about the subject" makes one suspect you didn't read the sources since at least one is purely about the subject... Hobit (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My perusal of the sources offered here and in the article reveal far too many passing mentions and primary sources. An example is this, which Lemongirl942 seems to consider comprehensive coverage (as it's grouped with several as "independent") and then offers two that are "passing mentions" separately. This example is most definitely a passing mention, rather than the comprehensive coverage needed to establish notability in a Wikipedia context. The most convincing argument I've seen for meeting notability criteria is the argument by
talk) 06:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Evildead. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live.... From the Depths of the Underworld

Live.... From the Depths of the Underworld (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. Meets no part of
WP:NALBUMS. No independent discussion of the album to be found. | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well....... it would appear that all Steamhammer/SPV GmbH releases should be deleted, it would seem that you are playing favorites. This album meets all requirements for relevancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caryn davis (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there are two sources shown I will remove the wiki source.... problem solved

There is no evidence given for notability. The source given is "Wikipedia Article: Evildead" which just seems recursive. The source for a Wikipedia article is another Wikipedia article. That just can't be considered good enough. Maybe the page is work in progress, but if nothing better can be found it should be a Delete Pupsbunch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evildead. Neither of the sources cited is reliable, and I found no other coverage. It's already covered adequately in the band article. --Michig (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to
WP:NALBUM, propose them too!crh23 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to band. No reason to delete history however. Hobit (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evildead, no independent notability. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 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 14:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible Things (fragrance)

Incredible Things (fragrance) (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 fragrance. Being endorsed by Taylor Swift is not enough. Greek Legend (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely solid enough for any merge and none of this actually suggests any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not sure being endorsed by Taylor Swift is a good thing, but regardless, my Google searches turn up nothing to help this pass
talk) 09:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Just an ad.VanEman (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep easily meets
WP:N. Are people even doing web searches before !voting to delete? [28]. We've got Glamour, MTV, Daily Mail, Hollywood Life and more. Hobit (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete - this is out-rightly promotional and there is nothing outstanding about it that meets encyclopedic magnitude. Kansiime (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stardust Reverie Project

Stardust Reverie Project (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. Nothing in news. Greek Legend (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this imagines better applicable notability, still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If they're notable, I don't see it. Fails WP:BAND.
talk) 09:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to easily meet
WP:BAND#5. Hobit (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Trivial references made up mostly of non-notable music blogs and the like equals zero evidence of coverage or references by non-trivial independent sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the
WP:BAND#5 issue? Hobit (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

In reply to you, Hobit, while this band involves some level of contributions from a hodgepodge of musicians who are, in some cases, unquestionably notable, the band (or project?) itself lacks verifiable evidence of accomplishment or notability. The references provided are fan blogs and the band's own website. If the article provided non-trivial, independent references it would go a long way towards getting me to consider changing my vote, but I'm not even sure that would be enough. The band's social media efforts on Facebook have resulted in little more than 150 likes, and the founder's You Tube channel posting of the bands videos average less than 1,000 views. While such evidence is not within wikipedia's guidelines for determining notability, something tells me there's not much "there" there, if you know what I mean. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I'd say it still pretty plain this meets
WP:BAND#5, but your points are reasonable. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it meets
WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. not my field, but even I can see that this is a clearly promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable and fails
WP:BAND Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was SNOW Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Smurthwaite

Kate Smurthwaite (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 links are mainly the subject's blogs and appears to be self promotion or publicity. Considering the criteria for Notability in media and arts, she does not appear to be influential, has contributed no new theory or technique, does not contribute significantly to a well-known body of work, nor has she significant critical acclaim. EvidentAnalogy (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject's notability is well-established in mainstream media per
WP:ENT. Granted, the current article may rely too much on blogs and unsourced claims (I did some improvements on 22 January on that), but that's a long way to having it deleted for an alleged lack of notability. I'm also in favour of adding a "Criticism" section if the current page seems too promotional. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Notable female comic. All that is lacking are a couple of additional sources.--Tallard (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no doubt about her notability. Additional sources should probably come soon --Nattes à chat (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs improvement, but if there was any doubt about her notability, the Goldsmiths incident should have tipped the balance irrevocably. --129.89.206.38 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep additional source:3 Feb 2015 The telegraph: Kate Smurthwaite: the comedian who confused no interest with no platform http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/society/11386478/Kate-Smurthwaite-the-comedian-who-confused-no-interest-with-no-platform.html --LaMèreVeille (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that the delete request is from an account which has no previous contributions. I think this deletion request is in bad faith and should be removed immediately. I am aware of the Wikipedia "good faith" policy, but to create an account with the sole intent of asking for a deletion is suspect. Could this account be a sockpuppet? --Tallard (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well-spotted, I hadn't noticed that yet. I've guarded this page against many vandals, usually they edit from an IP address and have an obvious malicious intent by smearing the subject's reputation. This one may be the sneakiest yet in creating an account (likely an
SPA) and almost correctly filing a formal deletion request, which still looks like a thinly veiled attack on the subject's reputation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Satisfies notability criteria. Years of being a standup comedian & her board membership of British humanist & feminist organisations is sufficient for notability in Britain. I know Kate & I was connected to Goldsmiths College for 10 years. There has been a clique at Goldsmiths that have emerged in the last 2 years that seeks to silence free speech that they disagree with. The deletion request is coming from a malicious intent

Keep Passes
WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 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 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Bachand

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Nicolas Bachand

Articles for deletion/Nicolas Bachand (2nd nomination)

Nicolas Bachand (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)

NN minor-league hockey player, ephemeral career. Subject was deleted at AfD nearly a decade ago for failing
WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG. Recreated by the infamous Dolovis, who was responsible for the creation of thousands of NN stubs, and was banned by the community from new article creation. Ravenswing 13:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Notability issues. — Music1201 ^talk 04:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable with no convincing signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 10 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. Katie^talk 23:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.C. Gregson

J.C. Gregson (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)

Unremarkable person; no sources; doesnt link to any article. Originally under CSD
A7, moved to AfD after Contest for Speedy Deletion undetermined. Music1201 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Siler City, but not enough to meet GNG or ANYBIO~~, or to make a useful article~~. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and there's nothing else convincing especially the article's current context. I'm also not optimistic about the Redirect mentioned above because he's currently not mentioned there and I'm not finding anything solid to confirm a Redirect. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely unsourced. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: The Gregson-Hadley house PDF (http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/CH0477.pdf) has a reasonable biography and links Gregson to the Gregson-Hadley house. This is thus ~~sufficient and~~ reliable (edit: though
WP:ONESOURCE) to construct a referenced biography, however I still don't believe Gregson meets GNG/ANYBIO as his notability appears purely local to Siler City, so would still stick with the Redirect proposed for this (also applied to Julius Clarence Gregson), with no objection to redirection to Siler City if that article ever incorporates Gregson into its early history).^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - although one potential source suggests notability, I can't see how this person passes
WP:GNG as anybody notable. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to show they pass
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:46, 12 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 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knaves (band)

Knaves (band) (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 two year old musical group. Fails
WP:BAND for lack of sufficient available sources. - Mr X 12:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as simply not yet solid for the applicable notability and would certainly need better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, and googling "Knaves Sheffield" finds only social media and blogs. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Photogenic Indonesia

Mister Photogenic Indonesia (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, promo The Banner talk 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Unable to verify that the information comes from a reliable source.--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for any applicable notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 10 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 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss United Continent titleholders

List of Miss United Continent titleholders (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)

Unsourced list of winners of a pageant that was deemed not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss United Continent (2nd nomination) The Banner talk 12:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Unable to verify that the information comes from a reliable source.--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article for the pageant itself is now deleted or else I would've suggested moving there, nothing convincing for keeping this. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 10 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 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific International country rankings

Miss Asia Pacific International country rankings (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)

Looks like
WP:GNG as there are no independent sources The Banner talk 11:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as OR and unsourced and a subtopic that fails GNG. I thought we deleted this page before, or something very similar. Legacypac (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motus Drone

Motus Drone (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 a notable company. After stating the company's name and nationality none of rest of the content of the article content or the references is about the company or its products. A
WP:BEFORE search on Google delivered no usable results. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: nothing substantial in article to assert notability, Google gives very little, references in article don't mention the company, they're just listicles. crh23 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The company’s own website doesn’t even show up in a Google search, let alone any secondary sources to establish notability. giso6150 (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain the article: Those people who ask for "deletions" are trolls and spammers. Wikipedia, for many years, has a bad reputation because those individuals. Asking for "deletion" is an extrem mesure, especially in this case, because the article is not offensive at all. In fact, it has, today, six references, based on different sources. Give the author the chance to gradually improve the article. Wikipedia's sources are voluntary contributors, not professional writers. So, you should be very cautious before considering an article for deletion. Lots of Wikipedia's articles are about enterprises, corporations and individuals. Not all of them are popular or famous. And not all the articles on Wikipedia are totally conform to its edition policy. So, just remember our Freedom of Speech. Energyelectrofree

This obviously can't be taken seriously for saving the article. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Energyelectrofree, please familiarize yourself with
notability. Swistertwister, please don't bite the newbies. JHCaufield - talk - 17:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Bite the newbies? "Those people who ask for "deletions" are trolls and spammers" is egregiously uncivil, a baseless personal attack, and I'm issuing a civility warning to Energyelectrofree, accordingly. I see he'd never been warned for removing the Afd tag with an edit summary that is another personal attack, so I've issued another warning, which is his 3rd.
talk) 17:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with Shawn. The last time I looked,
WP:BITE didn't say we're obliged to roll out the red carpet for aggressive COI editors. Nobody has bitten them. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete There is nothing to indicate notability for this outfit, at this time.
talk) 17:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There is little to indicate notability on a Worldwide scale, much less notable to the English-speaking world. plus advertising Winterysteppe (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete: PROD was removed by creator of the article. First reference is the company itself, second and third provide the definition of the latin term motus and a generic description of a drone. Last three references are about uses of drones but do not reference the company, as far as I can tell. Nothing sufficient to support a claim of notability. EdChem (talk) 11:53, 10 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) Mz7 (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Axonie

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

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

I couldn't find a single RS source Greek Legend (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The title is misspelled, that's why the nominator was not able to find any sources. The common name is Akhuni or Axone (see [29][30][31][32]). utcursch | talk 04:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 05:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given by utcursch are enough to establish notability, so keep and move to Akhuni. Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's an older AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axone (curry) about an old and badly written version of this article. Uanfala (talk) 22:14, 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 11:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This just shows why some articles need multiple spellings. I never use the search function inside Wiki anymore.VanEman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I meant to comment sooner, this is convincing enough to keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per utcursch's comment. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 20:59, 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. Katie^talk 23:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ebisa Adunya

Ebisa Adunya (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 fails to meet the
WP:Music guideline for notability. A google search reveals no reliable sources to verify this article's content. 4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have nominated this for CSD under sections
G11 per the Copyvio report clearly noting evidence of copyrighted material. Music1201 (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @SwisterTwister: Your !vote is a bit vague here. Could you please clarify what you mean by "none of this". Is this just based upon sources listed in the article, or did you perform any additional source searches? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article presently appears to be free from copyright infringement (0.0 percent confidence in copyright infringement, as of this post).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a highly notable Oromo figure. Greenman (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly locally known musician and party leader. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unsourced article and searches did not turn up anything to show they pass
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:48, 12 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. There is clear consensus not to have an article about this. A selective merger has been proposed, but does not find consensus here. Considering that a talk page merge proposal has also already been closed as failed, I'm deleting instead of redirecting. Should consensus later emerge to cover this topic at Donald Trump, as a testament to the quality of U.S. political discourse, the relevant material should be available on the talk page and can be copied from there. Sandstein 12:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short-Fingered Vulgarian

Short-Fingered Vulgarian (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)

Definitely not encyclopedic content. If really necessary, the content could be merged into Donald Trump, however I vote to delete it completely, since it has absolutely no importance in the description of Mr. Trump and is (imo) on the verge of being considered harassment. rayukk | talk 11:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trivial recentism. Imagine how many articles you can create for every nickname every celebrity has been called. The term 'unencyclopedic' has been used loosely before but it clearly applies here. Spellcast (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Spellcast: How does a phrase that originated in the 1980s qualify as "recentism"? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the sense that since his campaign is currently big news, trivial unencyclopedic things from the past are being given undue attention here. Spellcast (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

30 years isn't "recent". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, Spellcast isn't saying that the original use of the phrase was recent, but rather that its attention in popular culture and the media is recent. —
talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge somewhere – Of course, this is rather silly, but perhaps the mention can be merged to an appropriate article, as per
WP:PRESERVE relative to the decent coverage the topic has received. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I agree, it is not encyclopedic at all, and it does indeed verges on harassment. I understand that is easy to view D. Trump negatively, but wikipedia should include comedic insults? Specially as a separate article? A lot of details form Trump's past are dug up, including "sensations" like "my date with Trump, " or "I showered with Trump" etc. This 30 years old expression would probably be forgotten if wasn't refreshed already, and soon will be forgotten by the media. Bialosz (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @
predict whether or not the topic "soon will be forgotten by the media"? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment @Northamerica1000: Spellcast explained it very well already, in his comment abouttrivial recentivism, he made a good point.Discussion about powers of predictions, mine or yours ;), would be pointelss. Bialosz (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect. Per Northamerica1000. The notoriety and duration of the comic "feud" and the pervasiveness of the nickname are substantial. It should be borne in mind that although right now Trump is primarily being viewed in political terms, he's also had a long career in the entertainment world, and this content is thoroughly appropriate in that context. (At some point it may be appropriate to spin off a separate article or articles on Trump's career in entertainment and his media profile.) In the meantime I think this material, written in an appropriately NPOV tone, is appropriately included. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Closer note – There's also a simultaneous merge discussion occurring at the Talk:Donald Trump page, at Talk:Donald Trump § Proposed merge with Short-Fingered Vulgarian. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Closer note – An additional merge discussion is also occurring at Talk:Donald Trump § Proposed selective merge of only one sentence from Short-Fingered Vulgarian. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I live (thankfully) an ocean away. I'm already familiar with this term. Some political insults are trivia, some stick. Some become defining of particular politicans: Nixon and Clinton, sweaty and unshaved or cigars - you all know instantly which goes with which. This term was coined thirty years ago and it's still in use. I can hear references to Trump's "dimensions" on my national evening news broadcast in a whole different country. This is a notable term with legs (I have no idea if he has short legs). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "sweaty and unshaved (Nixon)" thing related to a history-changing event/public reaction when presidential political debate was newly broadcast on TV versus the radio. The "cigar" thing related to Bill Clinton's impeachment proceeding, again having significance relating to a historic event. Do you have any similar historic significance to offer re the "short-fingered" thing? (If not then I'd say your comparison argument breaks down.) IHTS (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't work by historical significance here, we work by the independent attention paid to it. This issue has garnered attention - fanned substantially by Trump himself. It also matters less if Nixon was unshaved or was even seen as looking unshaven - what matters is that the newspapers discussed it the day after. Clinton didn't smoke a cigar in the hearing, I don't even know if cigars were mentioned, but they were certainly mentioned in the press. The finger issue has received that same attention. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your two examples (do you even know what the cigar reference you made is about?; it appeared you did, then subsequently that you don't) had some historical import/significance, so was reasonable to assume you chose them in whole/part for that reason. Now you're saying historical significance is irrelevant to notability, and the only basis you give for notability is the thing got "attention". If I tell you that being in print or generating attention and therefore references isn't sufficient for WP:Notability, it just might just kill me by boredom. (So I won't.) That apparently is your single argument, without qualification towards editorial judgement (save the element of some degree of historical significance, which you said is a ghost). IHTS (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, is there a separate article on Nixon's beard-stubble? On Clinton's cigar? On any/all of the various alleged Presidential/Presidential-candidates' peccadilloes through the years? Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well, we do have
Barack the Magic Negro, Barack Obama "Joker" poster, Shut up your mouse, Obama, You didn't build that. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
But nothing on the cigar or its close relative, The Blue Dress, or the stubble... Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have established beyond any reasonable doubt that extremely derogatory memes can have articles in Wikipedia. We can have this kind of raw racist shit but somehow Trump's short fingers are immune? Makes zero sense - apparently the NOTABILITY standards for political memes are far more flexible than any of the "deletes" here are aware of. Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also
Barack the Magic Negro. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Does someone really need to do the cliche thing and link you
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Maybe those subjects merit an article, maybe they don't. But the fact that they exist right now is not an argument that this one should. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Fyddlestix if you actually read what I wrote here I have explicitly said that I am not making an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. What I said was that the community standards for NOTABILITY and what constitutes an "attack article" seems very low in this topic area. You are surely aware that various topic areas have their own tweaks on the basic NOTABILITY standards. People can disagree but do not distort what i am saying. Just don't do it. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - First, it was created by a sockpuppet of a
WP:CC BY-SA, although I don't fault him for it.- Mr X 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not really sure the attribution chain is any more compromised by the removal of the originating username than if intervening usernames are redacted. I'd propose starting over again if that's an issue, though it's a bit bureaucratic. I have no view on the actual notability issue here. Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article is not encyclopedic in the least.CFredkin (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - If this material is worthy of including in an encyclopedia at all (which I seriously question) it can be dealt within the main Trump article. Obvious troll is obvious, we shouldn't be giving crap like this the time of day. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Rayukk and Spellcast's arguments—at most, this might deserve a single sentence in the article
talk · contribs) 18:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

'strong keep i saw the posting at BLPN about this and came here just to check it out, thinking "hoax" or something but the number of legit sources that discuss this in depth was surprising to me. Meets GNG by a mile. About the G5 speedy tag, this has been worked over extensively (by MrX, ironically) and so the tag was no longer applicable - I am the one who removed it. That said, given the overwhelming "delete" response, i would of course accept a merge to the main Trump article. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (modify, after seeing what other kind of political memes we have articles for; paying mind to the genre standards for NOTABILITY is important Jytdog (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)) (striking Jytdog (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I think it's worth mentioning that my work on the article consisted of removing the most glaring
WP:BLP violations and using Refill to fill in references.- Mr X 20:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Sure, which constitutes a review and acceptance of the content added by the banned user. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, but in case there's any question, I do not accept the content added by the ~~banned~~ blocked user.- Mr X 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is name calling with Graydon Carter is the perpetrator, Trump the victim.
WP:AVOIDVICTIM says in part: Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 19:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There are plenty of sources discussing this, which satisfies
WP:GNG. As long as the article doesn't focus unduly on the current news, it's not a recentism issue. For a similar case, see "Confessions of a Republican", an old topic which has also been brought up in reference to Trump's current campaign. clpo13_(talk) 19:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, don't merge. Crap material like this belongs in the Urban Dictionary (the dictionary, not the article on same). IHTS (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Silly, but seems to meet
WP:GNG. Funilly enough, today I read about this "concept" on Dagens Nyheter [33]and saw a sketch that mentioned it on yesterdays SNL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. If this phrase is of enduring WP/encyclopedic interest and noteworthiness and was created by Spy Magazine back in the 1980s - over 30 years ago - to refer to Trump then why was an article on the subject just created yesterday? The phrase was created by Graydon Carter and re: this Carter/VF essay Carter has continually repeated the phrase because he has the VF pulpit and admits he employs the phrase as a way to jab at Trump. Who wrote all the captions in the VF column I refer to above?...Vanity Fair/Graydon Carter. Why should Wikipedia give credence to an infighting wrestling/schoolyard shouting-match between Carter and Trump? Shearonink (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO this could have been speedied per G10 as an attack page (recognizing that ridicule is a form of attack). A merge or redirect is out of the question. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete trivial gossip Josef9 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect The Trump article needs a sentence on this topic, but that's it. Absolutely no standalone article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Trump article need a sentence on this? It seems like it certainly doesn't need this kind of non notable attack material added to it. --Malerooster (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete with no merge. Insults aimed at currently running political candidates are very common, rarely notable, and never encyclopedic. This is no exception. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as either G1 or G10. Outside of that, it's pointless trivia and recentism. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 07:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see the notability in this topic. If there is consensus to merge, then I would have no problem going that route as well.
talk) 07:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

That would be because you've just deleted half the sources Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was mainly an attempt to remove sources and strengthen the argument that the article has notability. If you go through my edit history, I have done the same for other pages as well, and after three sources that say the same thing, nothing is really gained when you have ten sources that all state the same fact.
talk) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
"an attempt to remove sources and strengthen the argument that the article has notability. "

That's not an argument, that's nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excess sources always impress that the case for notability was weak to begin with. So to weed them is productive & helpful towards making any case of notability. What's nonsense is your accuse of nonsense. IHTS (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or better Merge. As Jytdog says, remarkably well sourced over a period of years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is to be kept at all, it should either redirect to Spy Magazine or to Graydon Carter's article. This seems to mostly center around a "feud" between the two that includes the phrase but isn't limited to it. Most of the coverage on this specific phrase is relatively recent despite it being used in the 80s, as it's from the past few months with the exception of a handful of articles written in October of last year like this one.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 08:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

recent sources doesn't mean
WP:RECENTISM. This is an almost thirty year old meme and of the 33,000 google hits of which many are low quality, here is one from 1989, one from 1990, the cover article from 1999 Jewish Weekly, Newsweek in 2004 completely just tossed in, a nice 2006 NYT piece by Christopher Buckley, 2004 Globe and Mail in the headline of a review of the Apprentice when it first came out, slate in 2006 again in reference to goings-on on The Apprentice, Gawker in 2008 picking up the gawntlet, national post in 2006 remarking contemporaneously with Trump making his quote about "In fact, my fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body." " which he did away back then in 2006. And there are many, many over the decades. It has been a touchstone since it was coined and hammered on by Grayson. Jytdog (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete. Come on, in a supposedly international encyclopedia? It's ridiculous. Also having an article with this name is intrinsically a BLP vio. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; I am saying that for this genre of articles, these are the community standards. This article is way more strongly sourced than almost any of those. Jytdog (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
(My god, hasn't the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich article been deleted yet?) OK, I expect you're right; this actually is the US- + GB-pedia, not an "international encyclopedia" at all. However, I don't understand why you and other keep !voters argue per "well sourced", as the nomination is nothing to do with sources. I don't see a single delete !vote complaining about sources. Massively sourced doesn't help if something's undue, trivial, and insulting to a living person. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I hear you kind of. But again it seems that for politicians that standard is very very low. Again,
Barack the Magic Negro which has never been AfDed and was even on the front page as a DYK. That is WP's standards for this sort of thing. (as for the global thing, Trump is likely going to be the republican candidate and the world media is very aware of that) Trump has spent most of his career in the tabloids and this description stuck to him then and is still stuck to him. I cannot see how it is even close to being as demeaning as Barack the Magic Negro. I am baffled - really baffled - by anyone freaking out on "Short-Fingered Vulgarian" in light of the standards we have. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
There's nothing in BLP that says "this stuff doesn't apply to politicians." Trump is clearly the victim of a crude verbal attack and we should
WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The other rubbish should go too.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 11:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, we went through this nonsense in 2012 (and probably 2008 and before), and I argued for deletion for pretty much every one of these things last time around too. Wikipedia should make an effort to stay above the fray and not act as a proxy battleground for these politicians and their supporters. I know; it's hard to type that without laughing. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't funny or cute to me, and this is why I don't edit about politics. This phrase is sourced out the wazoo by multiple people (not just Grayson) for nearly 30 years, and people are having a cow. But Barack the Magic Negro is just fine and hey DYK worthy. Barak. The... Magic. Negro. A proud, proud, Wikipedia article indeed. A good reminder for me to stay the hell out of topics where there are poor sources and active online communities. There is no reason here. Ya'all will do as you will do. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Per your comparisons in this discussion, don't forget about Piggate. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm that article is so long! and exists. oy. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's cute or funny, I'm saying these articles are ridiculous. What's funny is the suggestion that WP will somehow not get sucked into political battles. I knew it was impossible when I said it, but it's still something to strive for. If it makes you feel any better, we did manage to delete Obama Eats Dogs. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an attack page. I'm no fan of Trump at all, but that's straight-up an attack page from a non-reliable source who's only purpose is to deride Donald Trump. Delete and salt ! KoshVorlon 15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge. See Talk:Donald Trump#Proposed selective merge of only one sentence from Short-Fingered Vulgarian. QuackGuru (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge. Per QuackGuru, we should migrate one sentence over, with a reference, then delete the article under this title per
WP:BLP. --Jayron 32 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

BLP states that we can't say critical things without sourcing that they already have an independent notability outside WP. This does. It has had such for thirty years. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consesnsus is against a merge. My proposal is a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE notes that Wikipedia should not give more prominence to a concept inside Wikipedia than it receives outside. Mentioning the concept in Donald Trumps article would be in line with the relative importance of this. Dedicating an entire, stand-alone article is a BLP violation of its own self because of the undue level of prominence it gives to a minor issue. --Jayron 32 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
talk) 05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete at best as although this could be merged as stated at the talk page, this is likely best deleted as I still no solid signs of a future. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete Not worthy of a stand alone article and if deemed notable enough can easily be covered at the main page in a simple sentence. AIRcorn (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was created by a sock of a now banned user and it will be nothing but trouble to keep it. Jonathunder (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Do not simply delete. A selective merge would be a reasonable compromise. There's ample RS to demonstrate that the phrase has notability and is not just a recent creation.
talk) 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Selective merge and I'm noting that even some editors voting Delete are saying that they'd be okay with including a sentence or two on the main Trump article (under media coverage?) about this. I don't think the subject warrants a stand-alone article (and deletion of those Obama articles should be considered, too) but the fact is that this reference to short fingers comes up and it could be an element of the Trump campaign that readers are looking for clarification of. It would be BLP violation if Wikipedia stated Trump had these fingers while I think it's fine to include a mention of Grayson's term to indicate Trump's frosty relationship with NYC papers and magazines over the past three decades. It's part of his public profile, it's a feud that Trump brings up himself. It's the feud that is notable, not what Trumps fingers are like that matters. So, I vote for a neutrally worded, explanatory statement on the Trump bio would benefit readers, whatever their political leanings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt Totally frivolous page. Also BLP restraint. — JFG ^talk 22:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump as not passing GNG, and as violating BLP. (This has been mentioned in mass media, but fails GNG by itself; it only makes sense in terms of the main article.)epicgenius @ 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You think it violates BLP, and want to merge it to a BLP?! IHTS (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt fails GNG, operates as a coatrack attack on a living person. -- Callinus (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump. Certainly notable, we've even heard of it in countries with sane elections, but not worthy of a standalone article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not need a separate article about every individual nickname, pejorative or otherwise, that somebody comes up with for a public figure. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial name calling is not encyclopedic nor is body shaming. --DHeyward (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and merge into brief mention in Trump article per what everybody says. I am finding the arguments here compelling and willing to accept that NOTABILITY is not applied with lower standards to political figures. I will be interested to see if standards are really consistent here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack the Magic Negro -- Jytdog (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Why not. As a public figure life is not necessarily kind. But it's not bigotry or the like. Gongwool (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Salt Breaks BLP rules, entirely non encyclopedic, frivolous, has little informational value, and breaks the Letter and Spirit of Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not independently useful as a separate article. Created for shits and giggles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at most this deserves a line in the main article, but I don't even thing that it deserves that. I am sure there are lots of nicknames for Mr. Trump, but
we are not mandated to include every single one. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete at most this deserves a line in the main article. Although the reference may have 'gone round in circles' for umpteen years. It has not been the subject of any significant events/coverage etc. Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is a real thing, it has been talked about for over 30 years, there are abundant sources. It is now relevant to current events. It is true and it is verifiable. While it may not justify an article I don't think the content of this article should go down the memory hole. It should find a home in another article. HighInBC 14:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as an attack page on a living person; echoing MelanieN. Fylbecatulous talk 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing more than a symptom of the ridiculously long election process in the USA. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge very briefly. -- NOT NEWS. The principle is NOT NEWS, and this type of article is one of the reasons why we have and need that policy. I would apply it not just to this article, but to almost all similar, except those with actually proven historical or literary significance. Almost all political insults have -- and are intended to haver -- only an ephemeral significance, and the middle of an election campaign is not the place to judge the permanent value. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are simply too few reliable sources, so the subject fails
WP:GNG. Katie^talk 23:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

HealthCare Global Enterprises Ltd (HCG)

HealthCare Global Enterprises Ltd (HCG) (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)

Contested PROD. Non-notable, fails
WP:CORP JMHamo (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. On very day of the company's successful (oversubscribed) Initial public offering, with multiple articles about it in many sources over recent days! It was helpfully started as a stub by someone who noticed the omission in Wikipedia; they should be thanked not slammed by an AFD.

What efforts in
wp:BEFORE
were performed? Nomination does not state any efforts or explain why topic is "non-notable", could be based on just the fact that it is a stub article with only 2 reliable sources so far?

Here is article in The Economic Times (the 2nd biggest business newspaper in the world, behind Wall Street Journal). Note one crore rupees is 10,000,000 rupees (rs) is about 150,000 U.S. dollars. The IPO yielded Rs 292 crore in pre-sales round to "anchor investors", then Rs 650 crore in the main IPO. That is $141,300,000 U.S. dollars, which is above what i saw elsewhere was the median size out of the 350 IPOs in U.S. in part or all of 2013: $100 million. This study of 2015 IPOs in U.S. reports 275 IPOs raising $85.3 billion so mean is $310 million, but that includes Alibaba's record IPO and 15 others > $1 billion. Any way you look at it, being >$100 million is pretty big!

Search in Scholar (with search term modified sensibly to "HealthCare Global Enterprises" rather than the whole string) yields, for one: "Corporate Presence in the Health care Sector in India" by Indira Chakravarthi, Social Medicine, Volume 5, Number 4, December 2010, which lists it among private companies, giving
xvix. Healthcare Global Enterprises Ltd (HCG), a chain of cancer hospitals with equity investments by IDFC Private Equity, Evolence India Life Sciences Fund and PremjiInvest, had 17 cancer treatment centers across the country in 2009 and was planning to expand to 40 centers with an investment of Rs 400 crores by 2012 (Business Line August 29 2009).

--do ncr am 04:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by cited sources and new source ([34]) provided by doncram. ~Kvng (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is 2016. Any idea what may have occurred in the last 4 years? DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but notability is not temporary. ~Kvng (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:NTEMP). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and Draft if anyone needs it because simply none of this is convincing to simply keep for assumed notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @
WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the reasoning and sources provided above. AusLondonder (talk) 01:59, 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 11:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I looked long and hard at this subject. Guidelines call for 3-5 independent and reliable sources with comprehensive coverage of the subject, so I'm confused about why people are voting 'keep' based on the two existing sources, the size of the company, or the amount their IPO brings in. These don't establish notability. Surely there is more out there if this company is notable? I found this and I thought "Oh, I may vote keep!" until I realized it might just be a press release ("ET Bureau" in the by-line) and it's primarily a quote from HCG anyway (primary source, not comprehensive coverage). I found a LOT of articles available on them, certainly, but the entire lot was either just coverage of one event (Their IPO) or a VERY LONG list of press releases.
talk) 06:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. We should not have an article whose documentation is limited to the IPO. Companies are notable for what they do, and that's what has to be shown to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage, beyond the routine coverage of their ipo, to show they pass either
WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:09, 12 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 Culture of Uzbekistan. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore in Uzbekistan

Folklore in Uzbekistan (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 appears to be a complete set of
WP:TNT applies here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no encyclopedic value to this article in its current state--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've been noticing these Uzbekistan articles and there's simply nothing convincing for them. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:TNT, indeed. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to
WP:TNT. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:02, 10 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Genovese

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gina Genovese

Articles for deletion/Gina Genovese (2nd nomination)

Gina Genovese (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)

NN politician, one-time mayor of a small town, failed candidate for state senate. Deleted at AfD for non-notability in 2007, promptly recreated out of process and falling between the cracks. All-but-unsourced for several years. Fails the GNG,
WP:POLITICIAN. Ravenswing 10:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I looked her up and a lot of the press about her actually comes after she left elected office and became a community organizer on issues that seem to get a lot of coverage. I would keep it with a banner that asks for more (and newer) references. VanEman (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since, however, this is a BLP, and one that's essentially gone without qualifying sources for nearly a decade, source tagging it just doesn't cut it. We're enjoined to aggressively remove it if reliable sources providing substantial coverage about the subject (as opposed to community issues in which she is involved) are not demonstrated to exist. If you've found any, could you cite them, please? Ravenswing 19:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as this is still questionable for the applicable notability and, even with improvements, I would imagine the article would still be questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable enough unfortunately. Fails
WP:GNG as not having significant coverage in reliable sources AusLondonder (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
reliably sourced enough to satisfy the requirements as they stand today. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, just not notable per our principles. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 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 merge to
(non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Tread Bolt

Tread Bolt (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)

Minor fictional character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to
Mathewignash (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this is enough examination to see this is simply not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per SwisterTwister. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 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 redirect to List of waterfalls in India#Ganganna Sirrasu Water Falls. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ganganna Sirrasu Water Falls

Ganganna Sirrasu Water Falls (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 unremarkable place. 333 -blue 10:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete perhaps as this would've been nice as an article but I would also imagine there's nothing for any applicable notability and improvements. Restart or Draft if needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Google results for this waterfall are not encouraging, and seem to consist almost solely of a single site: www.hoparoundindia.com . I don't believe this meets
talk) 13:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect probably to List of waterfalls in India, unless any more material is found to develop article so it it could be worth keeping separate from the list. Photo makes the waterfalls look significant to me, but there's not much more in the article than appears in the list now. If there's material, then this is to be kept by
wp:GEOLAND. I just added its photo to that list which @Vfuller09: has been developing nicely. And I inserted an anchor at List of waterfalls in India#Ganganna Sirrasu Water Falls. --do ncr am 01:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.
WP:OR, made-up essay Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Terracotta culture

Terracotta culture (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 search for "terracotta culture" has some hits, but none in the context used in the article. There wasn't any coverage I could find for this "phenomenon".
csdnew 09:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
csd new 09:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
csd new 09:20, 3 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 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mercer (musician)

Mark Mercer (musician) (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)

From what I can see via a search, Mercer seems to have only gained coverage for his tragic death. I can't really find anything that goes into depth about his career as a producer or performer, so I have to assume that neither is of particular note. Notability is
WP:NOTINHERITED by him having worked with notable persons and I can't really find anything to show that he had any overwhelmingly large influence on the bands or albums, especially as bands and albums can have many, many producers involved with an album to varying degrees. I think that the best I found was this brief mention
in the Stranger.
If there's more coverage out there then that'd be different, but I can't find anything other than the one brief mention and some articles about him drowning. I'm aware that some of this coverage might be pre-Internet, so if anyone can find anything then that'd be great.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 12:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
WP:1E - his untimely death. There seems to be sadly nothing else that makes him notable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
H is for Hellgate, but Mercer's not mentioned at all in the former and only a single time in the latter so a redirect to either seems inappropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing better for any applicable notability and obviously nothing else for the future because of his death. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i did a search myself and i found nothing Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 19:19, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Charostaei

Arman Charostaei (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 political activist. Dandelo (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for that applicable notability, simply nothing else convincing for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources that would make the article passable for the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 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 speedily deleted by
(non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

A look At History Of American, Celebrating

A look At History Of American, Celebrating (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)

Written like an essay. I can't even tell what this article is about, and it's likely not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. — Music1201 ^talk 07:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Per
WP:G3 "blatant and obvious misinformation". Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass (which the editor mis-spelled) never got married to each other. The article is just gobbledygook. — Maile (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete G3. This looks like an intentionally bad translation of a foreign-language version of
Black history month (Dark Record 30 days). "Martin Luther Master Jr" for King, etc. I might call it a good-faith-yet-bad-translation if not for "Chief executive honda" for "President Ford", which to me blows the deal. Crow^Caw 15:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No sources. The main subject is not even clear. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete patent nonsense. Even if we're talking about a notable topic, it would need to be
completely redone. clpo13_(talk) 19:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete I think it may be a very poor machine translation of an attempt to write something about
talk) 21:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

A10 would certainly seem to apply. Crow^Caw 21:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete as I've been noticing these recently, I believe it's simply that users misunderstand Wikipedia and haven't examined closely how articles are better acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hilarious yet incomprehensible. GAB^Hello! 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied, I don't think it should sit around for several more days. Looking up the creator, I found a new article by them, An Efficient Strategy in Capturing Drug Users, and speedied that as well. I've encouraged the user to go via AFC. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen I think this nomination template needs to be closed, so it shows on the AFD stats. Yes? — Maile (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, but I don't think I should both speedy and close, I prefer somebody else does the close. It doesn't have to be an admin. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 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 merge to
(non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Rapido (Transformers)

Rapido (Transformers) (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)

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to
Mathewignash (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as there's no additional examination needed as there's nothing for actual solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect It's not independently notable, but I'm not sure how much information needs to be moved over. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:53, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ludmila Bereznitsky

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ludmila Bereznitsky

Articles for deletion/Ludmila Bereznitsky (2nd nomination)

Ludmila Bereznitsky (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)

NN gallery owner, article without references supporting the subject's notability since creation nearly a decade ago. The list of "publications" is all-but-unreferenced. No sources satisfying the GNG as giving the subject "substantial coverage" have turned up. Article originally deleted at AfD in 2007, recreated by a SPA with no other Wikipedia edits. Ravenswing 07:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

DElete -- She may be good at putting together exhibitions and writing catalogues for them, but apart from that she has published little; and appears merely to be a lecturer, not a professor in the European sense. Nevertheless, art is not my speciality. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete excepting a couple external links, this is an unsourced BLP. I was able to find this from WP:GNG. Further, this article really smacks of a promotional vanity project. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A
talk) 22:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as not satisfying any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references providing evidence of passing
WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, As failing
WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:13, 10 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. clear consensus--no bar to re-creation with adequate sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hamad

Al Hamad (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)
NN alleged Arabic "clan," no sources proffered. Unimproved in a decade The article was AfDed nine years ago with a bundle of similar ones, and in one of those brutal decisions common to the era closed as a keep based on the pious hope of the keep proponents that sources might eventually appear.
My comment from that AfD was "These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page 'Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter.' The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenager named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect
WP:HOAX at this point."
No newer sources substantiating any of the information in the article have turned up since, and the article remains unimproved in all that time. Fails the GNG, but then again it always did. Ravenswing 06:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge with Al-Zeitawi. It is unfortunate that Arabic transliterations are not easily conducive to something that can be standardized into a Latin script, hence skewing our search return numbers. That however, does not diminish the actual content as I can verify as an Arabic speaker. Hawaan12 (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What "content?" There are no sources listed here. You've cut-and-pasted this response to all the "clan" articles I AfDed, which leads me to question whether you've sought reliable sources for some of these at all. If you have, where are they? Ravenswing 07:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Can't find any coverage in either English or Arabic RSs. Eperoton (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests solid notability and there's nothing to suggest this is an improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as old, vague article with no sources. Searches do produce hits on Al Hamad as a contemporary surname. And references to clans of this name in various parts of the Arab world. But this article makes claims such as "Al Hamad (الحمد) is an old Arabic tribe who live in the village of Jammain" and my search on "Al Hamad" + "Jammain" comes up empty, except for mirrors of this article. Better to have no page than a page spreading information that cannot be validated. No prejudice against re-creation if someone can source a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like al-Zeitawi, this is probably not a hoax article, but should be deleted because it can't be verified and quite frankly, even if we could verify that the family exists, it would probably fail WP notability guidelines. This goes for all the supposed sub-branches of the Zeitawi clan. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find anything to substantiate that this subject passes
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sheikh Ahmed

Al Sheikh Ahmed (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)
NN alleged Arabic "clan," no sources proffered. Unimproved in a decade The article was AfDed nine years ago with a bundle of similar ones, and in one of those brutal decisions common to the era closed as a keep based on the pious hope of the keep proponents that sources might eventually appear.
My comment from that AfD was "These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page 'Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter.' The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenager named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect
WP:HOAX at this point."
No newer sources substantiating any of the information in the article have turned up since, and the article remains unimproved in all that time. Fails the GNG, but then again it always did. Ravenswing 06:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge with Al-Zeitawi. It is unfortunate that Arabic transliterations are not easily conducive to something that can be standardized into a Latin script, hence skewing our search return numbers. That however, does not diminish the actual content as I can verify as an Arabic speaker. Hawaan12 (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What "content?" There are no sources listed here. You've cut-and-pasted this response to all the "clan" articles I AfDed, which leads me to question whether you've sought reliable sources for some of these at all. If you have, where are they? Ravenswing 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Can't find any coverage in either English or Arabic RSs. Eperoton (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not yet satisfying any applicable notability, would be best restarted as a better article if available. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sheikh Saleh

Al Sheikh Saleh (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)
NN alleged Arabic "clan," no sources proffered. Unimproved in a decade The article was AfDed nine years ago with a bundle of similar ones, and in one of those brutal decisions common to the era closed as a keep based on the pious hope of the keep proponents that sources might eventually appear.
My comment from that AfD was "These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page 'Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter.' The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenager named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect
WP:HOAX at this point."
No newer sources substantiating any of the information in the article have turned up since, and the article remains unimproved in all that time. Fails the GNG, but then again it always did. Ravenswing 06:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge with Al-Zeitawi. It is unfortunate that Arabic transliterations are not easily conducive to something that can be standardized into a Latin script, hence skewing our search return numbers. That however, does not diminish the actual content as I can verify as an Arabic speaker. Hawaan12 (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What "content?" There are no sources listed here. You've cut-and-pasted this response to all the "clan" articles I AfDed, which leads me to question whether you've sought reliable sources for some of these at all. If you have, where are they? Ravenswing 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Can't find any coverage in either English or Arabic RSs. Eperoton (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no context or sources at all, nothing else better convincing and this could be restarted later if needed with better information and sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zeitawi

Al-Zeitawi (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)
NN alleged Arabic "clan," no sources proffered. Unimproved in a decade. The article was AfDed nine years ago with a bundle of similar ones, and in one of those brutal decisions common to the era closed as a keep based on the pious hope of the keep proponents that sources might eventually appear.
My comment from that AfD was "These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page 'Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter.' The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenager named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect
WP:HOAX at this point."
No newer sources substantiating any of the information in the article have turned up since, and the article remains unimproved in all that time. Fails the GNG, but then again it always did. Ravenswing 06:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no reliable sources appear to exist to verify this, and I agree that it could well be a hoax. It is worrying - though sadly it no longer surprises me - that the article has survived this long. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, there's no way of knowing how much longer it would've lingered if I wasn't going through all the AfD discussions in which I'd participated where the subjects still had blue links. Ravenswing 23:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I doubt this was a hoax, because from what I've gathered through working on Palestinian village articles, the Zeitawi tribe is indeed a large clan in the town of Jamma'in and smaller villages in the vicinity, though I highly question claims of descent to Muhammad and the vast geographic extent of the tribe. However, due to the lack (or virtual absence) of coverage in reliable sources, this tribe and its sub-clans don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Even if a ref(s) could be provided to prove the clan's existence, I still doubt it would be notable enough. I'm surprised this article and its sub-articles were not deleted in '07. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep or merge with Al-Zeitawi. , The correct course of action when an article title is legitamate but its content is a bit iffy, is to add sone tags or templates to it, not delete. Due to transliteration issues, it does not produce more returns. Hawaan12 (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's certainly a common misunderstanding on Wikipedia, but official policy holds differently. From WP:V - "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." From WP:GNG - "There must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition." I see no reason why this article should receive another ten years without references providing it significant coverage that satisfies the GNG. Ravenswing 06:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's obviously not a hoax, but I can find no coverage in RSs to meet notability standards, either in English or in Arabic. I've removed a non-reliable reference from the article. The others were pasted from the Arabic counterpart, which has no footnotes. Their reliability and relevance would need to be verified. Eperoton (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete claiming the direct descendancy from Mohammad should be proved by many sources, while I didn't find anything. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems more like a non-notable local family, rather than a big tribe; I could find no reliable sources when googling "zeitawi", "zaytawi", "zeytawi", or "zitawi" (although there is a gas station in Jamma'in called "Al-Zitawi", according to openstreetmap). I share Al Ameer's doubts about the exceptional claims, especially the one about the vast geographic extent. A bit to the northwest of Jamma'in is the village of Zeita. "Al-Zeitawi" may well be a nisba or toponymic name based on that village, so it does not seem that this "tribe" has traveled the globe before settling down, at least not by the name Al-Zeitawi. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another case where none of this yet suggests a better applicably notable article and this would still need any better improvements, any of which can happen if Drafted (when and if needed) later. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've also filed AfDs on the last two "clans" from the old AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Sharei, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Eisa. Ravenswing 11:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
Al-Khalil (family). - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
You know what it is, the original
Al-Khalil link in the 2007 AfD had been redirected to Hebron. Feel free to file on that one, though! Ravenswing 20:00, 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. clear consensus--no bar to re-creation with adequate sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zaghab

Al-Zaghab (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)
NN alleged Arabic "clan," no sources proffered. Unimproved in a decade The article was AfDed nine years ago with a bundle of similar ones, and in one of those brutal decisions common to the era closed as a keep based on the pious hope of the keep proponents that sources might eventually appear.
My comment from that AfD was "These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page 'Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter.' The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenager named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect
WP:HOAX at this point."
No newer sources substantiating any of the information in the article have turned up since, and the article remains unimproved in all that time. Fails the GNG, but then again it always did. Ravenswing 06:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It is unfortunate that Arabic transliterations are not conducive to something that can be standardized into a Latin script, hence skewing our search return numbers. That however, does not diminish the actual content as I can verify as an Arabic speaker. Hawaan12 (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Happily, the sources you added are English language ones, and none of them mention the subject in other than a fleeting reference. The Savage book you cite gives this as its sum reference: "The Hilalian clans of Diyat, 'Araq, Zaghab and others spread over Ifriqiya like locusts." The Burton reference is a footnote defining Zaghab as Arabic for "the chick's down." You cite the title of the Hephaestus book, but perhaps you overlooked the part where the Google Books review states "To date, this content has been curated from Wikipedia articles and images under Creative Commons licensing, although as Hephaestus Books continues to increase in scope and dimension, more licensed and public domain content is being added." This cannot stand as a reliable source, and I'm removing it. Would you like to proffer any
reliable sources that meet WP:SIGCOV? Ravenswing 07:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Can't find enough coverage in RSs to meet
WP:NOTABILITY in either English or Arabic. One passing mention cited in the article is not enough. Eperoton (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete at best as the current article is actually not better convincing of any applicable notability and this could be Drafted at best only if needed for future uses. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by nom. I gave sourcing a shot, and found exactly what Nom and Eperoton found: mirrors of this antique Wikipedia page. No prejudice if against a new page if substantive sources can be produced. Although note that major Arab clans are not hard to source pages for:
Nashashibi clan, Atassi family, we have many such sell-sourced pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Searches, as with other editors, turned up zero to show the notability of this subject. Fails
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as not enough reliable sources to assert notability and none on the web either — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:00, 13 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. Consensus that the subject does not meet
WP:GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Samuel Huber

Samuel Huber (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)

Person does not appear to meet wider notability. This reference [35] indicates he did play 7 minutes in the Swiss Super League. Eldumpo (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 7 minutes in a match a number of years ago (to technically meet
COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish, Andrei Nițu, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Oliveira Costa, amongst others. Giant Snowman 08:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Given that he only just meets
WP:NSPORT that says: the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept (emphasis original). Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as still questionable for that applicable notability at best, nothing else currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GNG clearly failed, subject specific guideline not relevant in this instance. Fenix down (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa vs Iowa State 2015

Iowa vs Iowa State 2015 (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 subject of this article is a run-of-the-mill regular season college football game that is not sufficiently notable on its own to warrant a stand-alone article. The game can be sufficiently covered in 2015 Iowa Hawkeyes football team, 2015 Iowa State Cyclones football team, and Iowa–Iowa State football rivalry. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Neither team was even ranked at the time. Lizard (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written, the article does not meet any notability standard that I can find. It's possible that a single game could be notable--if this one is, we need more evidence of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iowa–Iowa State football rivalry as a non-notable individual game. ansh 666 03:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Temporal logic in finite-state verification

Temporal logic in finite-state verification (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)

Written like an essay or lesson. — Music1201 ^talk 05:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is horrible and it has been that way for a decade. Yet I still can't see awful prose as reason to delete.

We have an army of CompSci grads - isn't there anyone who can rework this? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless we can find a sensible merge target. Curiously, while I'm not into formal methods, I found it perfectly clear and easy to read. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is enough to keep and could use any improvements if available. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 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 keep.
(non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Air Traffic Controller (Band)

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

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

Notability seems highly questionable. An independent band with no major releases, awards or influence, as required by the guideline. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 04:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability and searches noticeably found nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The band was covered heavily in The Guardian, as shown in the citation to the article in the Wiki articles, as well as here. editorEهեইдအ😎 06:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to keep; clearly non-notable. — Music1201 ^talk 06:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable via the coverage received, e.g. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. We have no guideline that 'requires' "major releases, awards or influence". I have to wonder whether those who have !voted delete here made even the slightest effort to search for coverage that would establish notability. --Michig (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Performance reviews in Boston Globe and the Guardian should suffice, as per the reviews found by Michig. Now those need to be added to the article, which is sparse. Also, it looks like the albums are produced by Sugarpop Records, and that should be added. Unfortunately, Sugarpop Records is the label founded by a member of the band, so the music almost self-published. This, however, seems to be common now that recording does not require a multi-million-dollar studio. 23:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)LaMona (talk)[reply]

Keep "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The Guardian and Boston Globe and MTV articles should suffice for this Wikipedia guideline for notability. Eleanorarroway (talk) 23:32, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Castle of Dragon

Castle of Dragon (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 topic lacks
video game reliable sources custom Google search and no reviews listed at our major repository for old reviews, MobyGames. A redirect to Athena (company) could suffice. czar 03:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want. This nomination was opened because of my disagreement to this article being deleted. Now, although I've just found a small review (half a page) in Nintendo Power Issue 012 (page 77), I must admit that, while I still feel that, somehow, the subject is sufficiently notable, this title has lacked enough coverage to advocate that it deserves an article. Sorry for the inconvenience. Canyq (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notable sources.
ZettaComposer (talk) 13:11, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guingon Group of Companies

Guingon Group of Companies (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 proof of this company's existence -- I looked over the links in the past revisions and there is no archived page except for 404-type pages. There is a chance that the article is a blatant hoax, but I can't identify it as that myself. If this is not a hoax, then this could be deleted for lack of notability. TheGGoose (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: almost certainly a hoax. The "Key people" started off as initials; later revealed by the only other substantive editor (named "Guingon") than the original (IP single-purpose) as various people called "Guingon"; with offices around the world, income of 100,000,000,000 yen, and no trace of a mention on the web other than copies of the WP article. I tried searching in Japanese (hampered by not knowing the standard American(?) pronunciation) but found nothing on: Guingon グインゴン　ガンゴン　ギンゴン　ホルディング etc. I also see that the history is mostly one of evading deletion... if the company is this elusive, they are not notable. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a likely hoax. I should note that the user who originally created the article (the one with the same name as the company), twice tried to have it speedily deleted under
WP:G7, only to have other editors refuse that: [47] and [48]. Michitaro (talk) 03:53, 10 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 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Al-Muhaidib

Emad Al-Muhaidib (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)

Businessman who I can't tell if he is notable or not-the only ref is a el to a business, this could also be a not inherited issue. Wgolf (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no context at all as to why he's actually independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he was the top person at the business he is in it is not clear he would be notable, but in the position he is he clearly is not unless we have more sources than the company website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Englander

Lucky Englander (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)

Was on the fence about this-not sure how to treat casting directors. While I will admit the casting the person has done is pretty nice, not sure if they count as being notable. Wgolf (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 02:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all to actually suggest why she's independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She won an award (rare) for her casting of
WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:48, 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 speedy delete. obvious self-promotion, no notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Queue

Katie Queue (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 person and the article is written like an advertisement (hence the content and the article creator's username, which is also the same name as the article) this is an obvious autobiography. — Music1201 ^talk 01:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Blythwood (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this actually suggests how she's solidly acceptable for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing from the current information. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 3 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 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bojana Bojanić

Bojana Bojanić (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)

WP:ONEEVENT, doubtable notability The Banner talk 08:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep per vote at WP:Articles for deletion/Katarina Kekovic. Piecemeal nominations of members of a large category of articles risk inconsistent AFD outcomes. In the absence of (say) a formal RFC, precedent has largely been to keep national winners, with that plus Miss Universe entry being arguably two events (her state title can be covered by her national one). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
talk) 15:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment – See
WP:VAGUEWAVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not even win a beauty pageant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See
WP:DIDNOTWIN. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete at best for now as this is questionably better for both notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable, non-pageant winner. Quis separabit? 01:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete: Many mentions but probably little coverage, even factoring in that foreign-language coverage may exist. I would normally ask an editor here with knowledge of Serbian to comment on this for further notice, but all the editors with sr-4, 5, and N seem to be inactive so I'll just vote soft delete. Esquivalience ^t 17:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BYU–San Diego State football rivalry

BYU–San Diego State football rivalry (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 evidence seems to be against a rivalry, and this article by a Utah media outlet suggests this rivalry is
a Wikipedia fiction. However, this San Diego news article outlines some notable SDSU-BYU games stretching from 1979-2010 and some coaching connections between the two schools. But these don't a rivalry make. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Haven't fully evaluated but here is more coverage dealing with this series as a "rivalry": this from the Associated Press and published in a new Jersey newspaper in 2012. Cbl62 (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding much through searching on this rivalry. While the schools have played each other and seem to have a bit of a competitive attitude toward each other, it isn't being regularly covered as an actual "rivalry" in reliable sources. In other words, the rivalry may exist tenuously, but it doesn't appear to be notable. ~ Rob^Talk 22:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources above suggest that SDSU fans do deem this a rivalry while BYU fans maybe not so much--in part because it has tended to be very one-sided in BYU's favor. Additional sources supporting the treatment of this as some sort of lasting rivalry: [49] [50]. This ultimately may depend on how stringent one's definition of rivalry is; for myself, I think a one-sided rivalry can still be notable and that there's enough evidence to support this on SDSU's side, at least, so I will go with a weak keep. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to suggest that this "rivalry" is different from other football teams that BYU or San Diego State play against. FallingGravity (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These sorts of articles are generated all the time, usually by partisans of one team or another after the latest hard-fought match or playoff series. What raises this to any more of a "rivalry" than between any other teams in the same conference? The burden of proof hasn't been established. Ravenswing 07:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just original research, no reliable sources indicate this is a rivalry.
talk) 12:39, 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 redirect to Edward Hooper (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hooper

Edward Hooper (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 not actually about Edward Hooper, it contains only his work on the refuted
WP:BLP1E we should cover this at the article on the refuted hypothesis, rather than as a faux-biography of someone who appears to be known only for this. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Sad, I really liked his book, here's biography at his website, he spent 18 years studying and writing about the OPV/AIDS origins. Can an article be made from his website-biography? Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because it lacks independence. The problem is that he didn't actually study the OPV AIDS conjecture so much as spend years trying to find supporting evidence, mostly after the reality-based community had abandoned it as provably wrong. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This book shall stand since it has been created.KingOfKingsTheAssassin (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Striking meatpuppet !vote JMHamo (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (delete) to
OPV AIDS hypothesis article. This Edward Hooper stuff is way too refuted to it to have space in a wikicyclopedia. But his book and 'lifes work' does have some worldly effects which mostly came in the form of dead babies (Nigerian) so his contribution to health crises in real terms to be noted on the OPV-AIDS page. Gongwool (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gongwool's suggestion. BLP-wise, there is hardly anything that would pass as a
reliable source. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect perhaps as suggested as I also hoped others would comment but this particular article is certainly questionable to keep as there's nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN proponent of a fringe medical thesis. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Kathpalia

Rajiv Kathpalia (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)

~~Only one RS Source, which has a small mention. Second source is about a professor with the same name. Greek Legend (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply]
~~This actor should not be confused with an architect named "Rajeev Kathpalia". --Greek Legend (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)~~ confirmed blocked sockpuppetAtlantic306 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 03:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and found nothing from this current article satisfying the applicable notability, thus it's not convincing enough to keep. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you should have noticed the one reliable source in the article which counts towards notability. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @
WP:NEXIST, part of Wikipedia's Notability guideline page, where it clearly states, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your !vote carries little weight, because it does not appear to be based upon any type of additional source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well known Indian television actor, the reliable source in the article from the telegraph (Indian version) represents significant coverage, at least one more RS needed. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Calcutta Telegraph publishes many paid articles about Indian entertainment. Only RS source is TimesofIndia. India has many English sources which can prove notability. He is an active actor. He is not an Indian actor from 1956 that we can't find more than one RS. Greek Legend (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the info, how did you find that out about the Calcutta Telegraph? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Kathpalia is a well known actor on television and his debut film is releasing this year. Relevant reverences have been provided and more will be shared as we get them. Please keep this article. User:Shonell Thakker ~~: How was the result keep? Greek Legend (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)~~ The references are in place. I dont understand what is the debate about? When a page is being considered for deletion and a query is raised and the reply is given why keep the debate open? just a query User:Shonell Thakker[reply]

Keep Reasonable sourcing provided, likely to meet
WP:NACTOR AusLondonder (talk) 02:02, 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 01:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure what some folks are describing as reasonable sourcing? Facebook? Hotstar (an even less reliable version of YouTube, which isn't considered reliable)? A press release masquerading as a news story from the Telegraph (becoming more and more common in Indian press)? Perhaps it's the YouTube cite? Or, wow, could it be the citation (which doesn't actually lead to anything about this person) from that incredibly wonderfully reliable Mega Model Hunt? I don't have access to the Times piece, so AGF, it's a good cite. That leaves a single citation for an actor who meets non of the criteria of
WP:ACTOR. Searches turned up a single trivial mention on News, zip on Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam, or JStor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - one significant coverage is hardly enough, assuming the piece on The Telegraph is reliable, which honestly does look like a press release. The piece on Times Of India is what I believe to be a photo of the subject as a model in an ad, fails
WP:GNG—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - A note about the article creator
Conflict of Interest. The sources are poor in quality with the basic objective of somehow making the actor seem notable. 14.140.50.82 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

All those claiming issues with facts and citations seem to have their fact checks questionable too. Google search on article creator
M.S._Dhoni_:_The_Untold_Story goes its on its early stages of promotions so links will be added as needed. Still if anyone has a query discuss instead of throwing baseless accusations around — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:09, 11 April 2016‎ (talk • contribs
) Shonell Thakker

Delete I read through it and it reads like a self promotion piece for an upcoming movie, not seeing the notability factor to warrant a page. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not concerned about notability, but the article reads promotional to me. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails
WP:GNG as the coverage listed is insufficient to establish notability. Katie^talk 23:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Myles William

Myles William (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 record producer. References are all just links to song credits or articles listing song credits. Some refs don't mention article subject at all. Article is mostly just a list of known artists who worked with article subject once -- | Uncle Milty | talk | 03:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Uncle Milty - He has had a song on the number 1 album in germany, His Yuna lullabies remix was in national radio rotation on SirusXM for over a year, He scored a song in the movie "The Other Woman" starring Cameron Diaz which was a box office number 1, has had songs released on at least 2 major record labels { Lil Wayne/Republic Records and Estelle/BMG} and every reference mentions him). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.92.129 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2016‎
1. What song did he write and/or perform that was on what #1 album in Germany?

2. Odd that it appears that the Adventure Club remix looks to be so much more popular.

3. "Scored"? No. From what I can find he provided "additional production" to one song on that soundtrack. "Scored" would mean he composed/arranged it. He didn't.

4. Artists he worked for "had songs released on at least 2 major record labels". That could be notable, if he personally received some high-profile accolades for it.

5. The Wikipedia articles you've included as references don't mention him. The other mentions of him are just that, mentions. It takes more than a mere credit listing as producer to achieve notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

1: The subject did have a number 1 album for "Cemesis" in Germany producing the single "SINTFLUT" for Summer Cem which was released under Warner/Chappell. https://www.offiziellecharts.de/album-details-293591

Proof of credit: http://genius.com/Summer-cem-sintflut-lyrics

2: The subject did, in fact, have his "Lullabies" remix in rotation on Sirius XM Chill which is syndicated worldwide. https://twitter.com/siriusxmchill/status/429412137669505024

Here's a picture with further proof: https://twitter.com/thefuturemoguls/status/635638582326239232

Reporting statistics show that he's averaging 15 spins/week on Sirius alone: http://dogstarradio.com/search_playlist.php?artist=myles+william&title=&channel=&month=&date=&shour=&sampm=&stz=&ehour=&eampm=&tdate=201612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snacklord (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3: Per Wikipedia's criteria for a work that is notable there is no mention of the criteria for "scored" only "performed", which the subject had a role in the creation.

4: The accolade was that the subject was a part of an album that debuted on the Billboard R&B chart at #14. http://imallyuk.com/us-charts-nicki-minajs-truffle-butter-certified-top-20-hit-on-billboard-hot-100/

5: Without producers there would be no lyrics in music, publishing on records is split 50/50. 50% goes to the songwriter and 50% is received by producer. My point in that statement is that it's deeper than a mere credit listing.

Based on these facts the subject meets multiple areas within Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --Snacklord (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and Draft if needed as the current article is still questionable so unless better coverage can actually be found, the current article is still questionable for keeping. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 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 01:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News Source* From the State Press of Arizona State University. http://www.statepress.com/article/2016/04/asu-hip-hop-producer-myles-william — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.189.146.117 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on
being just one of many producers. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep 1: The subject does meet the criteria that wikipedia declares "notable". He actually meets almost all of them, not just one or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.189.146.117 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet
WP:GNG, searches turned up no in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:21, 12 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 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Croc Rose (Hari Niraula)

Croc Rose (Hari Niraula) (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)

May lack notability as an actor. Greek Legend (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 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 00:59, 3 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 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CoyIM

CoyIM (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)

Found only one RS source. Greek Legend (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable software.
flyer 02:37, 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 00:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable in forcing end-to-end encryption for Jabber/XMMP. --95.91.4.202 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking multiple independent references. Only RS ref is motherboard.vice.com, which is brief coverage at only a paragraph. This article includes the quote "CoyIM has not received a security audit, and… it is very much an embryonic project. 'It is not ready for regular users,' Soghoian said." suggesting that this is
WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - With
Whatsapp offering end-to-end encryption nobody needs decentralized services whose metadata can also be hidden. --95.91.4.202 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as searches found nothing better and the current article is not currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 10 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 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contentworker

Contentworker (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 software Greek Legend (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this is imaginably better for the software notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 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 00:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to locate additional reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Elaenia (talk) 18:23, 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. czar 22:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wildling Band

Wildling Band (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:BAND. The search results show Wilding Band, but the results are about some fictional group in Game of Thrones. It seems there is some group named Wilding Band in Game of Thrones. I am sure that is not this band.Greek Legend (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better and the current article is still questionable for the applicable notability, not yet convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 3 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
(non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Wade Williams (journalist)

Wade Williams (journalist) (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 found only one RS source about this journalist. There are other people named Wade Williams in search results. Greek Legend (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for
WP:CREATIVE as none of this is enough for the applicable notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CopyVio Copied from Humphrey Fellows blurb. This reads like a draft article, and if the creator (User:Williams704 - one single edit, which was the content of this article, and hasn't returned to make more edits) would like to take it back to draft space there might be something that could be done with it. I did find articles by her, a mention of a speaking engagement, and one reference (not ideal) about one of the awards, which I added to the article. LaMona (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, LaMona. I have speedied the article as an unambiguous copyright violation, and written a note to the author. If he wants to work on it, or if by any chance he owns the copyright himself, he can contact me. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conlin's Furniture

Conlin's Furniture (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 GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found some links but this is still questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an old article and poorly sourced. However, A regional chain founded in 1937 with 16 stores is almost certainly notable. I'll add a few sources, but, I feel rather strongly that this is the sort of article that any editor would do better to source or tag rather than delete. Over-aggressive deletion can be as destructive to the project as other kinds of drive-by editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing added a few news articles, all of the papers in the region have coverage of this retail chain going back decades, I used what came to the top of a Proquest Newspaper search, there's lots more out there. And, certainly the article can be improved, expanded form RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the new content added by
WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 18:47, 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 00:56, 3 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 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Mitchell (musician)

Jamie Mitchell (musician) (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 refs are primarily self-published or from IMDB which is not a RS. I expected Phantom Tollbooth to be promising, but it was simply a mention. I can find no other RSes and his common name doesn't make it easier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although there's a list of links, this is still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 3 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 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Ruckdashel

Brandon Ruckdashel (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 evidence this actor meets WP:GNG. References are poorly sourced. Self-promotional and not Neutral POV. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet convincing for both WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 21 references, great! But the one to the NYT is a dead link, and none of the other 20 are to reliable third-party sources. Some of them mention Ruckdashel in passing, but many of them don't mention him at all, it's ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stanno tutti bene (album)

Stanno tutti bene (album) (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)

Unsourced album. Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 12:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to discogs.com. --Dimitrij Kášëv 12:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can also be Redirected to the subject's own article since this album itself is questionably independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked some Italian sources but found nothing about this album. It would be hard to search anyway because the title is a very common phrase. I also looked at the WP article for the musician, and it has only one -- very poor -- source, and has huge lists of unsourced works and performances. I marked it as needing sources, and it may be possible to find them in the Italian press, but it will be very difficult to do from outside of that country. Note, the Italian article is very long and detailed, and only cites AllMusic and MTV, so there's nothing to borrow from them. Also, to User:Dimitrij Kasev, Discogs not a reliable source because, like IMDB or even Wikipedia, it is crowd-sourced. LaMona (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user:LaMona, sorry for my English. I don't understand which sources I bring: "Stanno tutti bene" (2012) is the last "full album in studio" released by Bassi Maestro: a short record in Italian article, a review on rapburger.com, another review in Italian. --Dimitrij Kášëv 11:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wp:rs. Any sources must meet those criteria. For example, Rapburger says: "Sei un appassionato di hip hop, di rap o del mondo urban? Allora collaborare con RapBurger potrebbe essere la tua oppurtunità." This implies that some of the reviews are written by people who do not work for the site. Acceptable reviews should be by professional writers. The review for Stanno Tutti Bene is by someone who is not listed in the staff list of the site. The HipHopMN review may be acceptable, but that gives you only one viable source. (Devo dire che anche per musica americana o inglese e' difficile trovare fonti accettabili per la music "indie"; trovarli per musica indie di altri paesi e' praticamente impossibile. A lo stesso tempo, WP non e' un sito per l'elenco di tutta la musica in giro, come AllMusic o Discogs. E' un enciclopedia, e allora ha uno scopo diverso. Capisci?) LaMona (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
User:LaMona, understood and thanks for the explanation. But, this aren't a ordinary album of a ordinary rapper, that is what I mean. Can you checked myhiphop.it? Tracks and review. --Dimitrij Kášëv 20:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A tracklist is just ... a tracklist. So that doesn't help. And the "review" is an interview. While interviews can be used selectively for some facts, they don't confer notability. As it is, the page for the artist is very weak, with only one reference, so if you wish for him to remain in WP @en it would be most productive to find -- and add to the page -- reliable sources about the artist. Otherwise, it is possible that page could also be deleted. LaMona (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the issue is not that it's unsourced, but that it's currently unsourceable. Well done LaMona, we aren't trying to bite the newbies, just to do things properly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per
reliable sources that cover this album in-depth (and definitely not enough where significant coverage exists) - which are requirements for meeting WP:GNG. This album also appears to fail WP:NALBUM. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:37, 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 keep. Katie^talk 23:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South West News Service

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

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

Promotional page made by COI editor. Independent coverage of this company not deep - brief article from press gazette in 2008, another here http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/swns-news-agency-takes-editorial-headcount-nearly-100-takeover-national-news 7 entries from holdthefrontpage.co.uk (a couple of which are quite insignificant) http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/tag/south-west-news-service/ One article in the guardian media section http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/nov/05/swns-moves-into-london-by-acquiring-yet-another-news-agency Majority of google results are from major publications using the photo agency Rayman60 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant company, with references which establish notability. Despite the conflict of interest, the article is not promotional in tone. The king of the sun (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article appears to be NPOV in nature. Additionally, appears to have had nice amount of secondary source coverage over sustained period of time. Also,
WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. — Cirt (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yep, appreciate they're separate issues. Outside of the issues raised, wasn't sure of whether this met notability purely according to notability criteria, hence putting it up for judgement by those that know better.Rayman60 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and Draft and Userfy if needed as my searches simply found nothing better and, although the article may seem acceptable and improvable, I believe I've concluded this is best deleted for now or otherwise removed from mainspace as it's still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SWNS is the largest regional press agency in the UK and one of the single largest providers of content to the British national newspapers. This article was intended to be purely informative, partly because the number of online photo credits for SWNS make it fairly difficult to access this information. Further references to SWNS are from this submission to the Leveson enquiry http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Witness-Statement-of-Andre-White.pdf, this article from Press Gazette http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/agency-boss-who-trained-four-national-newspaper-editors-dies-aged-52. A number of similar organisations also have Wikipedia pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demotix Jonmillsswns (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is from an employee of the agency who has recently been advised of the COI policy but has not declared it in this statement.Rayman60 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I included it in my username so it would be clear from the outset. I apologise but I thought that it was obvious. The previous comments seemed to agree the article was not promotional and NPOV. The remaining question seemed to be about notability which I was hoping to address. --Jonmillsswns (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 3 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CAHDİ Party

CAHDİ Party (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)

Apparently non-notable Somalian political party, and the article has some promotional content. It was CSD'd in April 2015, as well: [51]. Since then, however, the article has not made much progress. The only link provided was to the official website. Most results were either brief mentions, Wikipedia clones, or unreliable sources. There may be material in Somalian that I am unable to read, so I would appreciate if someone with familiarity with the language could help with that. This fails
WP:ORGDEPTH. GAB^Hello! 20:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the fact the party is led by notable figures such as the former Prime Minister and the former Deputy Prime Minister could indicate some notability. The article needs a clean-up. Sources will be harder to find given the serious instability in Somalia and language issues. See
WP:SYSTEMICBIAS AusLondonder (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - notable subject, but as per AusLondonder English-language sources are difficult to find. There are still some out there, though, and I'll try to improve the article a bit. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contains zero references to independent reliable sources.
WP:V therefore mandates deletion. Sandstein 12:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep notable party in a country with few international media sources. Wikipedia's systemic bias against organizations and people from non-western, anglophone countries needs to be taken into consideration.--TM 14:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With international offices and a couple of notable people in the party, it definitely warrants to be kept. In veritas (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to California Dreams. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cade

Michael Cade (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)

Almost completely analogous to
WP:NACTOR as well with only one "significant" role (in California Dreams). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to California Dreams also as this is simply not yet solidly convincing for the actors notability, none of this suggests a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is a UK Daily Mirror article highlighted in highbeam, still looking for it, also found a Brazilian article but the website needs checking out Atlantic306 (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you seem not to understand the meaning of "significant" coverage required by
WP:GNG. William James Jones had an entire Chicago Tribune article devoted to him, but that alone wasn't enough to establish notability. Also, if you found a cite as you claim, why have you not added it to that article? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The evidence of the Daily Mirror article is in the highbeam results which mention it, when I can find it I'll add it. After investigating the Brazil website I think its a content farm so that excludes it. Regarding sig coverage the AFC advice for reviewers is that significant coverage from one source is at least one substantial paragraph, see here its in the box of section two [52] which is a lot less than a whole article, personally I had thought it had to be a bit more than a paragraph. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One "substantial" article is not enough –
WP:GNG demands more. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:39, 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 13:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to California Dreams, subject is not independently notable. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to the California Dreams article. Not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 10 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. Thanks to Tokyogirl79's editing, the article is now at least less promotional. Sandstein 14:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Smile in the Mind

A Smile in the Mind (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 particularly distinguished book; the article is promotional , depending upon selective review quotes and a great deal of name dropping, linked to the 18 out of 300 contributors who are notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Just looking at the sourcing in the article, it appears that the only usable source is the review from the Sydney Morning Herald. Creative Review is a primary source (since it's a piece written by the book's authors) and the publishers' pages are certainly primary as well. That a primary source is trying to back up a claim that it's an essential book doesn't help it seem less promotional either. Offhand I'd endorse giving it a dose of
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I've speedied
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm finding some sourcing in Highbeam from Step Inside Design and Design Week, but these look like they're offhand mentions. My Highbeam has expired so I'm unable to verify how it's mentioned. Offhand this is really all I'm finding, mentions here and there. I'm going to try my college's library next to see what I can find.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I've stubbified everything. I'm not seeing huge evidence to show that it was as direly influential as the article suggested, but it does appear to be fairly well thought of in the design world. My school's database brought up evidence of possible reviews from places like Graphis,
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even if not confidently as compared to others because the listed sources and improvements are convincingly enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets
Tokyogirl79. Also, although it does not appear in any bestseller lists, the smh article [53] does call it "bestselling" - "A viral object in itself, A Smile in the Mind has been a bestselling product since it was published in 1996. Reprinted 13 times, with sales of more than 100,000 copies (impressive for a design book), it has now been updated for the first time in 20 years." Coolabahapple (talk) 16:34, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Mollenhauer

Heidi Mollenhauer (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 woman is only notable for singing for Esmerlda and nothing else. She sang beautifully in the film, and I wish she garnered more major roles for her to satisfy
WP:NACTOR. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER, none of the applicable notability actually. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.. My Google searches return a couple of passing mentions and nothing else. Perhaps I'm missing something here?
talk) 05:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, Imdb isn't a reliable source and that's all there is. Nor is one voice part enough for
WP:NACTOR. Bishonen | talk 15:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete - clearly doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 10 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 02:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Vodyanoi (Dungeons & Dragons)

Vodyanoi (Dungeons & Dragons) (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)

All info is redundant with
WP:BOLD, but was reverted by FreeKnowledgeCreator who requests consensus. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if needed perhaps but certainly redirect to Dungeons & Dragons as this is obviously best connected to that. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... and why would we put in a redirect to an article which doesn't even mention the term? Jclemens (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the section in
WP:CWW, if we're to keep the content at that target, so it could be protected if disruptively unprotected. Jclemens (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per User:Jclemens, above.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect per above. BOZ (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Umber hulk. The redirect should not have been reverted. Primary sources can not establish notability, and there are very few hits on Google Books. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to
Umber hulk, which is the clear target. This is basically directory entry as it stands. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:33, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grass Roots North Carolina

Grass Roots North Carolina (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 organization is not notable. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) : "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Felsic2 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as my searches found some coverage at News but this is still questionable at best and I'm simply not seeing anything convincing for a better mainspace article. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many mentions and some press release advocacy, but no RS coverage. Esquivalience ^t 22:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show it passes
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 10 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. postdlf (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Raikes

Tricia Raikes (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)

Everything here is mentions or PR. no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches simply found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I found plenty of references to her in news articles. Blythwood (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of news article refs are available. Clearly falls under wp:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice source coverage, including at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but a weak one, didn't find that much coverage of her, but the White House blurb and the power of the charity seems to push me into the keep column.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:33, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_April_3&oldid=1142623818"