Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2 February 4 February >

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 redirect to Non-Summit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysław Krompiec

Przemysław Krompiec (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 would put up a BLP prod-but there is technically a source-even though calling Instagram a source is laughable (Facebook/Twitter/Linked In would be more reliable even!) Anyway-possibly non notable celebrity with no reliable sources Wgolf (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Non-Summit -- Kanghuitari (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Non-Summit? That would work since that's all he seems to be known for. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. North America1000 22:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French Horn Rebellion

French Horn Rebellion (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 includes Facebook, AllMusic, SoundCloud, YouTube, and Vimeo as sources, all of which fail

WP:MILL. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Guardian is not chopped liver, and to have been featured in Andy Warhol's
    Interview magazine indicates it is among "some of the world's biggest celebrities, artists, musicians, and creative thinkers" (what Wikipedia says). That's no high school garage band. --doncram
  • Keep - I found a couple of 2013 articles: Rebel Rock and Indie Pop and Dance s Headline Milk Festival via Questia (subscription required) in the Sarasota Herald Tribune that mention this band being the headliner at the Harvey Milk Festival in Sarasota. From 2014 is the sfgate (Hearst Communications) review of the band style. This article was just started. I think we should give them time to develop the article. — Maile (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – @
    notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America1000 20:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @
      WP:NEXIST was what I meant by "simply not enough outside of it online". But nevertheless, it seems an adequate amount of reliable, significant coverage was found, so I'm withdrawing my nomination. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. ...more or less..

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Stripe (company)

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

Small company, apparently one of the minor players in the industry. with references either notices or press releases. They just document investments in it. Not notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This company is hugely notable in the software space and start-up world, considered a huge success and powering many other businesses. Just for one peek at this, see their page on CrunchBase. They are notable enough that over twelve hundred *users of Crunchbase* have starred or favorited this company, for example. Stripe is also referred to as a success story, making it something that readers will want to look up on Wikipedia for years into the future. Here is an example I just read, by chance, today: (analysis of why Parse is closing down — mentions Stripe as a success story). --X883 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC) — edited for formatting / explicit vote --X883 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I would've nominated it myself also as the current coverage and overall article seems questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability in "the software space and start-up world" doesn't equal notability in the greater world. Wikipedia is not a business directory. This company is not remarkable in any way and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Chisme (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. while the current article text isn't particularly compelling, I feel the topic is sufficiently notable Cariaso (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Cariaso that the current article text is questionable, but there exist more than enough reliable, independent sources that the topic meets the Wikipedia:Notability criteria. (I once added a reference to an essay by Paul Graham that discusses Stripe and implies that Stripe is remarkable,[1] but later someone deleted that reference.[2]). --DavidCary (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - bad article but clearly notable. Blythwood (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- One of the bigger Paypal competitor and meets
    WP:CORPDEPTH. I will suggest rewrite than considering for delete. Forbes, Wall Street Journal and many more. I request to research in detail, before AFD. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The nominator and other interested editors are encouraged to improve the article instead of nominating it for deletion.

(non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Editing of anime in American distribution

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

This article is in a very bad condition. It is full of trivia and is rather unencyclopedic. Some of the sections are completely unsourced. It was nominated once before, but no improvements have been made since early 2008. DodingBeast (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the process, however I can only do so much on a tablet so will continue later. I'm being quite aggressive, some things I recognise and can be sourced but leaving them in just in case they get fixed later wouldn't be solving the issue. I'll see about leaving a list on the talk page of possible additions.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now almost half the file size. I've removed a lot of the obvious trivia, statements supported by fansites and statements making obvious
WP:OR comparisons and conclusions. There is surely more that could come out but it's no longer excessive and will naturally be changed through development of that page. I'll look into some source articles for long term editing but this article was fairly easy to start cleaning up. There is no need to delete it.SephyTheThird (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Masters Champions League

2016 Masters Champions League (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 MCL is a tournament for "retired cricketers" and according to main article The players must all have been former international cricketers. So it seems like it is just an exhibition tournament with not enough notability for season articles. The notable content can be included in main article. Qed237 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Qed237 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a proper tournament and its 10 year tournament so how many seasons you will cover in one article? also i have corrected your spelling mistake "retired *cricketeers"
    GreenCricketTALK 10:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The notable content (not all content) could be kept in the main article. Like a table of winners and runners-up. Qed237 (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What is the point of creating an individual article for a season in a sports league that consists of entirely retired players. These guys are no longer professional and these games don't have any major significance past this tournament. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Retired players meaning that the players are not available in international arena only. Most of players are still active in domestic tournament like Indian Premier League and Big Bash League. Tournament organisations are hoping to continue in next year too. So I stand with keep the article. (Price Zero (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep The tournament has become quite popular. The article will provide useful infomation to the cricket fans.--
    করিম 16:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge: My initial thoughts on this are that it should be merged into the
    GreenCricket says it is a "10 year tournament". To be specific, the organizing committee has been granted a 10-year licence. This is the first season and there is no guarantee there will be a second. Until such point in time that there are multiple tournaments each with their own coverage, then there is no purpose in having separate articles. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If merge article it'll be used more space. And it can be difficult to understand useful point.(Price Zero (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Are you sure? Look at the current contents of Masters Champions League. The only things different/not in the "2016" article are the lead, 5 sentence of history and the 8 "key people". Merging that small amount of information with the 2016 article will not be "difficult to understand" if done properly. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one can predict about future of any league..if league disestablished then merge it like it happens with Champions League T20
GreenCricketTALK 11:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
You have it the wrong way around. We should have it merged first because right now there is only one league; there is no prediction involved in making that statement. Then, we can split in the future if there is too much information to be contained in a single article. Working on an assumption that there will be ten seasons just because there is a contract for ten years violates
WP:CRYSTAL. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben roulston

Ben roulston (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 the

reliable source. I could not find any references on Google News or Google Books. Broght to AfD after Prod was removed. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Y, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan's Top 10 Hackers

Pakistan's Top 10 Hackers (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. If not a hoax, this is totally non-notable. "WHA" was said in early versions to be the "World Hacker Association", about which I can find no reference but this content-less page. The link provided goes to Computerworld, where I find no mention, even when you search the site, of WHA, or of Muhammad Aanish Ayaz, the supposed winner. Searches found a list of Top 10 Pakistani Hacker Teams, but it bears no relation to this.

The article history shows a number of IPs tinkering with the names on the list and their order, which strongly suggests that there is no official announcement, just a bunch of guys playing games. The supposed winner, who was only second in the first version of the article, has been trying to post about himself here at Muhammad Aanish Ayaz Farrukh and User:Aanish Ayaz. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article subjects are found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha FZR250

Yamaha FZR250 (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)
Insufficient sources to meet notability guidelines, per
WP:PRODUCT. If not, how would that work, exactly?

By the way, a few years ago Motorcycle Consumer News wrote a long feature about the Japanese graduated licensing system that was responsible for the existence of these 33kW-limited learner bikes. That subject, the licensing scheme and its effect on JDM motorcycles, would be a good article topic, though again with woefully little reliable information about the actual bikes themselves. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]
I am also nominating the following related pages for reasons above:

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

t@lk to M£ 17:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Alexandru Dimca

Alexandru Dimca (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)

There's no particular indication this individual may meet

WP:PROF. - Biruitorul Talk 19:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I'm the creator of the article, and imho Alexandru Dimca meet

WP:PROF
.

Jean-Noël Sapin (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. GScholar gives an
    WP:PROF#C1. While GScholar can sometimes be overgenerous in what it counts as a citation, experience in theses AfD discussions suggests that the most reliable citation counters (to which I do not bave access) are very unlikely to give an h-index low enough (distinctly below 20 in this field) to change my judgement. PWilkinson (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep.

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Cho La incident

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

    This article is about a skirmish that happened in

    WP:NPOV and therefore should be deleted altogether and mention of the incident should be left within the articles mentioned above. Xtremedood (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    It being advertised as a great Indian victory is something to state in the article, and is all the more reason to provide an article that will debunk the propaganda. An apparent bias in numerous sources does not mean the item is not notable, and in fact it makes it more notable, perhaps: the fact of disagreement of views/sources can and should be mentioned and explained. The view of the Indian military should be clearly identified as that. The apparent assertion of different numbers (and perhaps "ridiculous" numbers) in India's parliament seems worth mentioning (from the Talk page: "claims of 88 Indian dead and 300 Chinese dead comes from an Indian Defense Minister, see here [7] at parliament...").
    Can't the article be developed using sources appropriately? The nom refers to numerous sources and seems to accept at least one source as unbiased, and even biased sources can provide non-controversial detail that is helpful. I see that the article was edit-protected for some period and that there is much discussion of sources at the Talk page that seems to suggest that some reliable sources exist (at least stating that the official Indian view is X, while an official Chinese view is not available).
    An incident in which 36 (the lowest estimate for India) plus unknown number of Chinese (perhaps 2X) are killed seems significant to me, especially if this outside of a proper war. There are extensive articles about incidents in the U.S. West where just a few were killed, for example.
    I agree with the nom's identification of problems in the article as it is now. It should be improved, but "AFD is not for cleanup" (
    wp:AFDISNOTCLEANUP), and the Talk page discussion was sort of working, I believe. --doncram 20:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Just to make mention of the two articles, the first one [12] references the incident alongside the Nathu La incident and refers to it as simply as a "clash" whereas the second source here [13] too references the incident alongside the Nathu La incident and states that a multitude of various incidents, skirmishes, and clashes have happened around that area and the Himalayas region. I still think that notability should be considered, as a minor clash among many similar clashes does not, in my opinion, warrant its own article. Xtremedood (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The pair of incidents were important and stand out from the much more numerous number of border incursions (60? 150?) in that period. I don't know but gather from context that the others were perhaps just patrols which went over an asserted boundary, and might have involved some gunfire, but no deaths and few or no injuries? I see that the two incidents are mentioned together (usually? almost always?). It seems the total of deaths across the two incidents is what matters. And I see that
    Nathu La and Cho La incidents (currently a redlink)? The major China-India relations article should not (and doesn't) include tactical-level detail about what happened within each of the incidents (like names of officers, and acts of heroism, or specific small advances and retreats, and so on), but this combo article could. Is some such detail available? [Yes, e.g. at China's Shadow Over Sikkim: The Politics of Intimidation pages 193-195, which reports based on Indian sources about Chinese soldiers approaching "feature 15450" (which we could probably pinpoint in a geolink) and so on, and reports on what a Chinese diplomatic "Note" (which must be available in full somewhere) about a Chinese commander shouting over the border about 5 bodies, etc., and what China's "The People's Daily said on October 8, etc.] It would be useful to let the reader understand what is being termed merely an "incident" or a "clash", vs. a fighting "skirmish" or a "military conflict". Consider that what the U.S. calls an incident, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, apparently involved naval gunfire but no U.S. deaths and possibly 4 North Vietnamese deaths (and is covered in Wikipedia in detail involving ship names and officer names). What some call an "incident" on the China-India border is a lot bigger, it seems to me. So: combo? --doncram 22:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    And here's great detail about Natha Lu, like Indian general Sagat Singh reportedly having "fortitude" and refusing to obey a command to withdraw, which was appreciated two years later, and various officers and the laying of a barbed wire cable, etc., etc.. See Similar account by Maj. Gen Sheru Thapliyal (and same here covering "martyrdom" of Indian soldiers under machine gun fire, but Indian artillery observation posts being superior, at Nathu La, and less about Cho la. I find detail by googling "Indian officer Nathu La" and similar phrases. You might argue the detail is not important, but to the Indians apparently it is, and to them the idea that they "bloodied the nose" of China is important, and the incidents are notable because the Indians think it is notable, in effect. Compare to the Americans' idea that Battle of Bunker Hill (where 226 British and approx 140 colonials were killed) was a really big deal bloodying nose of Britain, when that was a tiny incident relative to many European battles, say. --doncram 23:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Keep no rationale provided by nominator other than "India won this war, and I don't want to believe that", while discussion about the notability of this article is not needed, I would rather add that Xtremedood had socked on this article in order to right great wrong,[14] misrepresent sources and promote racist bias.[15]

    Capitals00 (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Xtremedood (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Xtremedood (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: the incident seems significant enough, IMO, to warrant an article by itself and the sources seem to satisfy
      WP:GNG. Per Doncram's suggestion, it is possible that the other major incident could be merged into this one and the article renamed, also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Keep There are more than enough sources to satisfy the
      GNG.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Rename
      Nathu La incident, which is currently a redirect to another article at rather too high level. If some one would prefer "incidents" rather than "conflicts", or some other word, I will not stand in their way. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Keep and Rename to 1967 Sino-Indian conflicts per doncram and Peterkingiron. The nominator is correct to point out that the article has been infested with a large number of single-purpose Indian nationalistic editors who have repeatedly removed neutral, academic sources and replace them with Indian sources that try to paint a minor border clash into a great Indian victory (see talk page). The current content is garbage and needs to be rewritten, but the topic is definitely notable. -Zanhe (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the
      article is well sourced and history cannot be changed/re-written by the whims of one individual. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Delete per

    (non-admin closure) RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    MoonMan's life

    MoonMan's life (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 already exists. Mademoiselle La Souris (Squeak!) 19:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete I think we may have tagged the page nearly at the same time, as I added a CSD tag for it just prior, duplicating the Donald Trump article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Positive and negative reinforcement

    Positive and negative reinforcement (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 is a fork of Reinforcement#Reinforcement. It is an orphan and works better described in the context of reinforcement. May be worth merging the "in the classroom" example into reinforcement maybe at Reinforcement#Applications. The only counter consideration is that reinforcement is getting very long. It might be worth having a new "reinforcement applications" article as there are so many applications - for example see search for "positive reinforcement" in Wikipedia. Penbat (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 19:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Professor Alexia Thomas

    Professor Alexia Thomas (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)

    Vanity/autobiographical page. Author keeps removing deletion notices.

    Hama Dryad (talk
    · contribs · email) 18:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Im currently working on this article, this is not autobiography, is a research im currently working on about this controversial person, im gathering more information about her, please dont delete the article, im working on it.If you keep deleting the article while im working on it you affect my ability to contribute to wikipedia...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexia thomas15 (talk • contribs)
    If it's not an autobiography, then why is the subject's name also in your own username? Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There isn't anything in the way of notability on the page. Also reading the above comments, this looks clearly to be a vanity page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: apparent
      COI and blatant promotionalism. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 20:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Keep now that the page has been rewritten to be less promotional and by someone unaffiliated with this person. Kudos to Wikicology. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for changing your vote to Keep.
    t@lk to M£ 11:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yes,
    t@lk to M£ 15:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It's not verified. These stories even say "not verified by CNN" on the page. It's an easy mistake to make, but you need to watch out for these hosted "citizen journalism" portals on news sites. They are typically posted verbatim without any editing or fact-checking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    t@lk to M£ 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    t@lk to M£ 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    t@lk to M£ 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    t@lk to M£ 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 12:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    What arguments? This is not an helpful comment and I don't see how this is a policy-based comment neither do I see how this comment is relevant.
    t@lk to M£ 13:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Keep Ive been working on the article, Ive added more sources and information, the article right now is more neutral than its original edition, so I think it can be keep right now. The person seem to be a controversial figure, Ive found some posts in some websites saying she is a scammer and a fraud (but nothing credible so far), it might be a good idea to include a section in the article about these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtros66 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep including if it can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, subject has coverage in tabloid media (newspapers), which are not reliable sources and perhaps not fully independent of the subject. Promotional article has no place in Wikipedia. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered if you might be familiar with
    t@lk to M£ 16:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Not a very
    WP:FRINGEBLP without adequate sourcing.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    t@lk to M£ 04:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Gordon Brody

    Gordon Brody (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)

    Successful, yes, but I couldn't establish that he meets

    WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Wisdom89 ♦talk 19:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Wisdom89 ♦talk 19:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete While this physician has been mentioned or quoted several times as a consulting or primary care physician in sports, there doesn't seem to be much to establish his overall notability. Much of it consists of one-liners or brief mentions.  Wisdom89 ♦talk 19:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as the current article is currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Casio. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Casio CTK-691

    AfDs for this article:
    Casio CTK-691 (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, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 18:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect or delete to Casio this is simply unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Joan Harvey

    Joan Harvey (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 evidence that this meets

    WP:APPNOTE to Wgolf, tagger and actual creator of article, Chris the speller. Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. My contribution some years ago was to create a redirect IOT clear up some confusion, but rationale for deletion as non-notable is sound. – S. Rich (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no evidence her roles in the films is enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as not yet better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was re-direct to

    CT Cooper · talk 21:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Irinyi János Reformed School

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

    Seems to be the same institution as Irinyi János Reformed Secondary School. If someone could verify, this could be speedily deleted. PanchoS (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is obviously the same school, but as a plausible search term, it should become a redirect, not deleted. Since a page nominated at AfD cannot be blanked, I am pinging an admin with the school project to close this and redirect it. Ping
      CT Cooper. John from Idegon (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.

    Spartaz Humbug! 11:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Droon

    Droon (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

    ping}} me. czar 22:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 22:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles Rollings

    Charles Rollings (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:AUTHOR. Delete, without prejudice against future recreation if his sourceability improves. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    As the stub creator, I noted that Rollings's books are cited in at least ten WP articles on POW subjects, meriting some more information on him. However, I respect both the objection and the AfD outcome. Bjenks (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Not even any minimal signs of WP:CREATIVE notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no indication he comes anywhere near to reaching the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    V. Mahadevan

    V. Mahadevan (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)

    Tamil actor who does not appear notable. The article is entirely unsourced and in trying to source it, I cannot find any record of his acting in any of the films listed, of dying in 2014 etc. This is all quite recent so some indication should be findable. Some Tamil sources may exist, but I can't find them. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. It's unclear where the content should be merged. In any case, the expansion of an acronym is not copyrightable so we don't need to keep the history around, and anyone should feel free to add it to the appropriate list and create a redirect to the list. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    AFAICS

    AFAICS (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)

    Just a definition which violates

    talk) 06:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 06:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to Iron Chef America. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Iron Chef America Countdown

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

    non-notable show, seems to fail

    WP:GNG, edit: Not a lot of sources found online, the premise of the show seems to be that it uses clips previously found in Iron Chef America. Prisencolin (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 13:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 06:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I do not see how this can possibly be regarded as having independent notability from the main show. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete if needed but certainly Redirect to the main show as this still need applicably connected to the original show. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.

    Spartaz Humbug! 11:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Faizan Aslam Soofi

    Faizan Aslam Soofi (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)

    Relisting from incorrect use of CSD, article lacks explanation of notability or significance, is very vague, and lacks useful encyclopedic content. Scientific Alan 2(What have I said?)(What have I done?) 08:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 09:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 09:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep The subject is a very young author, but there appears to be sufficient coverage, albeit low, of their early works to fulfill
      WP:GNG here. I've made some initial improvements to the article to reflect that coverage. The main claim to notability is the young author bit, but there is more coverage beyond that. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 07:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No evidence of notability for the author, of a single non-notable book. Being a promising very young author makes for posible notability--in the future. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete with nothing currently better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Internecine (film)

    Internecine (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)

    Non-notable, unreleased short film with zero coverage. Blackguard 08:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 13:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 13:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    original title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus.

    WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Vetta

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

    The article was first created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user and did not contain a single reliable source. I PRODded it, and it was deleted. Within days, a close paraphrase of a deletion version was recreated, with four sources. One of them is reliable and contains the mere mention of the film (the director gives an interview about smth else, and mentions in passing that he shot this film as well). IMO this does not create notability. Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 13:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 13:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Those things I was not aware of that. I am currently working on Mohanlal filmography, and I saw a red linked film title, so I created its article. That source you mentioned atleast tell us the film exists.
    talk) 14:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    There are no coverage for this old movie. But the actors are notable.--
    talk) 09:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    some alt searches:
    English:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    WP:INDAFD: "Vetta Movie"
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to Single-serving site. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Single-Serving Sites

    List of Single-Serving Sites (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)

    Blatant violation of

    WP:NOTDIR Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 02:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 15:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    TCO-Vidéo

    TCO-Vidéo (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)

    Maybe spam, as no references, no notabilities? 333-blue 14:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 20:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.

    Spartaz Humbug! 11:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Graciela Yataco

    Graciela Yataco (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:1E, pretty much a fork of Virginity auction anyways Prisencolin (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    ✈ 05:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    ✈ 05:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Unlikely notable for her own article, no further information to convince. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kleeneze

    Kleeneze (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)

    Tagged for notability since 2014. I added some references & another editor added more "citation needed" tags for which I can't find any RS. Discussed on talk page as not meeting

    GNG. — Rod talk 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Questionably notable company as, from what it seems, it's only a locally known and operating company, unlikely to have considerable coverage aside from the expected. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to
      WP:RS, but no longer worth keeping as a second article. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, it has reliable sources not included in the page. There are a lot of controversies which makes company notable, research in detail and add to the page. Ireneshih (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was

    (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    List of Pakistan women International footballers

    List of Pakistan women International footballers (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)

    should be merged with

    talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent point, hadn't thought of such a use for the article. I was only looking at it from the perspective of it being the list of the national team. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - notable topic deserving of an article. GiantSnowman 18:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Lists of International footballers both Men and Women are notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A list of any people (male or female) playing at the top level for their country is notable. The article looks a mess, but it easily passes the notability threshold for a stand-alone list. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete as a hoax. I've opened up a new SPI case and I'll block the article creators. I've also protected the page to prevent further attempts to create an article about the hoax book. If someone wants to create a book about Watkins's book and can create an article that establishes notability, I'll remove the page protections. I've also salted the page for "author" since that's related to the sockpuppetry case.

    (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Gratitude and the Good Life: Toward a Psychology of Appreciation

    Gratitude and the Good Life: Toward a Psychology of Appreciation (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 enough coverage in

    WP:NBOOK. Note: This is not the book Gratitude and the Good Life: Toward a Psychology of Appreciation by Philip C. Watkins which is a textbook published by Springer in 2014 and is not about evolution. This article was CSD in December as well [17]. JbhTalk 15:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 15:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Delete The book is real [18] but doesn't seem to meet NBOOK or any other relevant notability guideline. Note that article about author was speedy deleted last month as a hoax.
      (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Good find. That book is "funny" (Not ha ha funny either). It looks like they took the title from the Springer book and came up with the author by copy/past from Cleveland P. Hickman Jr. (Who seems to be a legitimate author [19] but not of a book of this title.) but got the last name, first name switched about and came up with Hickman Jr. Cleveland P.. I think hoax may be a kind word for it. JbhTalk 16:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This is a hoax. I took a look around and found the book at Amazon, however a search using some of the sentences shows that it's clearly the Philip C. Watkins book lifted wholesale. I'll alert Springer to this since this is clear theft. The "author" tries to get away with it by citing Watkins, but the book's info gives off the impression that the author is someone else. Now what firmly pegs this as a hoax is the name "Javad Ramezani" on Amazon. This sounded familiar and sure enough, it's associated with
      (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Consensus finds the subject is insufficiently notable for inclusion as an independent article. Some users have expressed that the content is still valuable and could be merged into another article and the consensus has no bearing on this. If someone would like to take the initiative to merge the content, I will gladly userfy it upon request. Swarm ♠ 04:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    List of international goals scored by Gonzalo Higuaín

    List of international goals scored by Gonzalo Higuaín (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)

    Just like footballer João Vieira Pinto, who had List of international goals scored by João Vieira Pinto deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by João Vieira Pinto, there is no indication as to why this particular player deserves a list. Just scoring international goals is not enough for notability. Qed237 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per the previous AfD noted above, the same arguments apply. This player, although notable in himself does not hold a scoring record for his country and so there is no clear reason why the contents such a list might be inherently notable. Furthermore, I see no evidence that his international scoring prowess has been the subject of specific, significant coverage of the level to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per GiantSnowman & Qed237 C. Ronaldo Aveiro (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or Merge data should be either kept in independent article or merged with parent article. Either way the material should not be discarded. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Gonzalo Higuaín per GA-class articles on similar topics which include this data, e.g. Nikola Žigić, Patrik Berger and so on. C679 13:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 17:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to

    (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Jake's Buccaneer Blast

    Jake's Buccaneer Blast (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)

    Erm, so... is there a reason why a Lego Duplo series needs its own article? Describing this "Jake's Buccaneer Blast" in Jake and the Never Land Pirates or an article for Lego Duplo in general would probably be a better idea. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy delete. Created by blocked user Anonymousbananas in violation of his block. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Classfever

    Classfever (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)

    Appears to be reasonably well-sourced at first glance, but upon closer examination of the sources, I see that nearly all of them appear to be user-submission based (e.g.,links such as "Tell Us Your Story!" "Get featured on this site!" No solid independent coverage from sources with any sort of notability or clear independent reporting (e.g., Time of India, The Hindu, etc.) OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete There was a claim that it's among the 100 000 most popular websites in India (which isn't a merit in itself), but I looked and Alexa gave the number 120,107. The "Total Sites Linking In" is also extremely low at 9. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiffany McElroy

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

    Delete: utterly non-notable local TV personality. Joke of an article. She's even less notable than her boyfriend, referenced in the article. Quis separabit? 13:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I tried coming up with something to say for 4 minutes but I couldn't come up with anything. I guess I'll just agree. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Lack of the adequate notability. Arashtitan 14:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Local news presenter, but not much after that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedily deleted by

    criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 05:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Ayudar Foundation

    Ayudar Foundation (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 enough coverage in

    WP:NORG. Several mentions in non-profit listings and one passing mention but otherwise I am unable to find any coverage of this organization in RS. JbhTalk 13:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 13:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 13:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Inverse Records

    Inverse Records (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 enough coverage in

    WP:NORG. Social media and passing mentions in album released. No actual coverage of the company. JbhTalk 13:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 13:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 13:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for failing
      WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that most of the blue links in the list of bands are actually links to general concepts, not band articles. The few that are not are based typically on MySpace, Facebook, and maybe a single record review, giving little hope of finding good material for writing an article about the record label. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator.

    (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Jennifer Barrientos

    Jennifer Barrientos (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 that did not place in

    WP:NBIO guidelines. ApprenticeFan work 13:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • preliminary Keep. We seem to have all the successive title-holders of the national title even if they did not place internationally, and we should be consistent. Has there been any general discussion? DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 12:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    N Mohamed Yahssir

    N Mohamed Yahssir (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:CREATIVE. Has won some minor competitions but not enough to pass Gbawden (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 12:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy deleted, CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, and salted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Almánza

    Andrew Almánza (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 assertion of adequate

    WP:NACTOR. After removing all of the citations to Instagram, torrent sites, blogs etc there was nothing left. Bit actor with bit parts. JbhTalk 12:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it going to be deleted?166.176.184.76 (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely so. Wikipedia requires that the subjects of articles be
    reliable sources. Not blogs, not Instagram, not IMDB but rather newspapers, magazines, books etc. Even in those cases the articles must be independent to the subject, not PR pieces or from their agent etc.

    I could find nothing like that for this person but if you can find good sources that meet our requirements then the article could be kept. This AfD will run for at least a week so you have some time if you want to improve the article.

    Also, please do not link to torrent sites, download sites etc. It is not permitted. Thank you. JbhTalk 13:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Comment There will be discussion here for a week before a decision can be made. GedUK  13:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    His name was in each of those references for The Librarians and Mystery Diners166.176.184.76 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for that link. Tagged for
    WP:CSD#G4. JbhTalk 14:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Adarsh Commercial Institute

    Adarsh Commercial Institute (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)

    Previously a

    WP:AFD on the same reason as before. AllyD (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    GunBeat

    GunBeat (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 single

    notable. Soetermans. T / C 10:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Delete as failing
      WP:VG/RS. I can locate 1 non-trivial source in Strana Igr[20]. There are other hits [21], Edge #60 passing mention, Retro short mention, but nothing substantial. Unlikely that there is anything more. At best, a paragraph or two in the parent/company's article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Building Engineering Services Association

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

    per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I couldn't find any sources that meet the standards required of WP:RS (and hence WP:GNG) Kavdiamanju (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    can you please explain why this is up for deletion? The Association (which has been around since 1904) is well documented and is a major player in the UK specialist contractor sector in the construction industry. It has changed its name, removing the "and", so I created a new page and copied it across. The name change is verified here: http://www.coolingpost.com/uk-news/bes-becomes-besa/

    I guess the same result would happen by changing the name of the original page

    Building and Engineering Services Association by removing the " and " text. I don't know how to do that, so help to change the title would be appreciated. user:sourswoken


    information Administrator note I have deleted the copyright violation, moved the original page to this title and replaced the AfD message. Please continue to discuss whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment (I'm aware the article was moved while I was writing this, but figured I could still comment on that part of the whole mess) As the person who reverted the change to the original page - I was about to move the original page to the new name for the reason David Biddulph has already mentioned above (I would have moved the new page to another name first and then requested a speedy deletion for it), but by that time, the new page had already been marked for deletion, and I didn't want to mess with it. That's why I at least restored the orignal article... Not sure why some seem to think that was the wrong thing to do? KungAvSand (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I apologize for the mistake, but I hope you noticed he had made some additions and changes to the page? Because I can't see those anymore. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was deleted at the author's request (he placed a PROD on it asking for it to be deleted to make way for a move) as well as the copyright violation. That request will include other edits he made. Regardless of any addition, the page remained an unambiguous copyright violation and would still be deleted on that basis. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, perfectly clear, I were just wondering/making sure admins don't have some special access to deleted bits. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep The BESA is a long-established industry organisation. The apparent lack of reliable sources to meet WP:GNG is perhaps largely explained by the change of name from the HVCA in 2012 and then the recent tweak to its name to drop the ampersand. I've made some edits and added some citations to expand the pre-BESA history. Paul W (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Siddy Says

    Siddy Says (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)

    Unnotable blog. Anarchyte 08:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as none of the current article and its coverage better satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 08:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was

    (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Jiggles

    Jiggles (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)

    There is nothing of note here for a worldwide encyclopedia. overage is basically limited to local press about the efforts to get rid of this establishment. I bet the locals have even forgotten about this topic already. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. The nominator is wrong. There are multiple sources from across the US. Meets GNG. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a now demolished single location strip club in
    WP:CORPDEPTH? I only found it because this article is camped over an English word that came up in RfD. Legacypac (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oregon strip clubs can be notable: Mary's Club, Three Sisters Tavern. I realize pointing to other articles does not help establish notability, but I think the Jiggles article could be expanded to similar quality. ----Another Believer (Talk) 04:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See also
    WP:NTEMP. North America1000 21:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and redirect to Bratz discography. Swarm ♠ 04:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Show Me What You Got (Bratz album)

    Show Me What You Got (Bratz 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)

    Non-notable album receiving little to no coverage in any reliable sources. Found at AllMusic, Amazon, Discogs, YouTube but no coverage. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • REDIRECT to Bratz discography. Entirely non-notable guff.TheLongTone (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Battalion 1944

    Battalion 1944 (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:GNG Non-notable dev, publisher, producer, it's just another kickstarter.  superβεεcat  07:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of video games-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment Obviously. But if the dev or programmer WAS notable, proving notability would be more or less trivial. A kickstarter is often
    WP:GNG, which is why I brought it to AfD. - superβεεcat  22:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    But are there not multitudes of articles for games, including many by independent developers that are made pre-release depending on the amount of press? Idealist343 (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, there are. I was just unconvinced of this particular one's notability, given the sources and coverage. Also, pre-release isn't the same as a kickstarter, which are notorious for producing vaporware, even on well funded projects. If THAT becomes a story, so be it.  superβεεcat  22:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Superbeecat does have a point though, we have to keep
    WP:CRYSTAL in mind. I'll try to go over the sources. --Soetermans. T / C 22:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    My defense would be that there are precedents that had a lot less reliable sources and a lot less coverage than this. Tuesday morning, when people went to their favorite video game industry website, whether it be Kotaku, IGN, GameSpot, or what have you, they saw this game on the front page. Does that not make it inherently notable by definition? Idealist343 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I also would go back to your original point. The sheer amount of reliable sources should be sufficient. Idealist343 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All fair points, except that a reliable source is only half the equation. To answer you question "Does that not make it inherently notable by definition?" No. Not at all. The coverage itself is also important. When you read the sources, they are basically repeating the announcement, and not really "covering" anything, because there is nothing to cover yet.
    WP:Crystal states in part "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." (emphasis mine). Until there is anything tangible, the coverage of an announcement is just speculation, as far as I can see.  superβεεcat  22:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Remember Notability is not temporary. If this was vaporware and dissolved today, would it still warrant an article? If yes, then keep, if no, then don't keep.  superβεεcat  22:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See you just said it though. It is half the equation. And that half it passes with flying colors. The other half is based on the assumption it may fail, which isn't likely considering it has almost reached its goal in just over 24 hours. I will stick by the fact that there are precedent video game articles that have had much less and based on much more rumor that have stayed. This game has plenty of reliable sources backing it up and as far as the other half of the equation, it could go either way, but we can better assume it will succeed than fail, but like I said, that should be irrelevant when taking into consideration the reliable sources reporting on it which will make people recognize (i.e. notablity) what it is. I stick by the fact that there has been many video game articles with much less kept. Idealist343 (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not how wikipedia (or kickstarter) work. It's not an ASSUMPTION that it may fail, until it is released, it DEFINITELY may fail, as hundreds upon hundreds of fully funded kickstarters do. Sometimes devs take the money and run. Sometimes everyone buys strippers (this just happened). Sometimes they just never finish a project. This product is in Pre-Alpha. You said yourself "it could go either way" - this is a SPECIFIC violation of
    WP:CRYSTAL. If something can go either way, it is speculation, until it actually goes either way. Let me put it this way, if it DOES fail, would you advocate keeping the article?  superβεεcat  22:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    But either way, it is still making an assumption. Here is what we know right now with no assumptions: This game has been announced by a team of developers. It is a game that IS being made and already nearing Alpha. It is covered by reliable sources (multitudes of them) and it is already almost across its threshold goal on Kickstarter. That is 10x more than many preceding articles based on announced video games have had, and they have been kept. Idealist343 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That simply is not how Wikipedia works. PLEASE read
    WP:CRYSTAL. It is an important policy. Not defenses to crystal: "But other articles..." "But it has made a lot of money and will probably exist..." "But the sources are good...". Notability cannot be temporary. That means that NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, whether the kickstarter goes as planned, or not, the topic has to be good. This is NOT speculation, this is the opposite of speculation.  superβεεcat  23:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It also says to include it if it is almost certain to happen. This is almost certain to happen. Do you not concede that? It has almost reached its goal in 24 hours and is already nearing alpha. There has been much less allowed. Idealist343 (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For video games specifically, there's
    WP:VG/RS. Gamerassault is not on there, I'd remove that one. Reliable sources like GamesRadar, VG247, VideoGamer.com and HardcoreGamer did mention it. The last one specifically said "Bulkhead Interactive, a studio comprised of former AAA developers and modders", but their official website doesn't have any information. On Kickstarter the game is doing pretty good so far. I wouldn't call this "speculation and rumor", as the game was actually announced. Okay, all in all, with all those RS'es mentioning Battallion 1944, I still say keep. --Soetermans. T / C 22:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hmmm. Isn't every game on Kickstarter "announced"? I do agree, there is probably more than trivial coverage here at this point... but I'm still having trouble with the permanence of Notability. Many hundreds (thousands?) of fully funded kickstarters never go on to produce products, despite coverage. How do we rationalize the litmus test of permanence (i.e. even if this is vaporware and disappears today, it's still a good article) with a product that may yet never come to be without violating wp:crystal? Is every piece of vaporware notable if the product announcement was covered? (I'm willing to listen if the answer is yes... maybe kickstarted vaporware IS notable if it had decent coverage...).  superβεεcat  22:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every game on Kickstarter receives this amount of coverage, either. Idealist343 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It is also worth nothing that this is not from some random studio that just popped up there first kickstarter campaign. This is a new studio, yes, but it is compromised of almost exclusively former AAA developers. Idealist343 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be useful. Do any of these Devs have articles?  superβεεcat  22:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I plan on researching as soon as I get home tonight. It is all I can do to contribute to this conversation right now on my tablet. I am at work. But yes I plan on trying to locate some tonight. Idealist343 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an example for ya. One of the most spectacular kickstarter failures was Yogventures. It made over half a million (DOUBLE what it was asking). in 2012. It was cancelled in 2014, despite massive backing and being tied to the massively popular Yogscast. THAT game, even though it is often mentioned as one of the most spectacular failures in kickstarter history, has NO article. The relevant paragraph is on the Yogscast page. It had FAR, far, far, more coverage than Battalion. I'd probably fight to GET an article for the game, as the failure itself is probably more notable than the vaporware title. We are talking about a title that may or may not ever get released. I've said my piece on it. What I WOULD advocate for, is (as proscribed in WP:CRYSTAL) adding the info to any of the devs' articles, if they have one. I think it's just too soon for this.  superβεεcat  23:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as whether the game will be another failed Kickstarter project is not important. If
      talk) 11:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    You say "without any actual depth" even though this article has a ton more depth than many articles left up in the past. Can you specifically tell me what it needs so that I can try and improve it to that level? Also,
    WP:NOTNEWS is talking about every little event surrounding a topic. There is no way this article isn't good enough for just a stub especially considering it is a fully funded game by AAA developers backed by a multitude of reliable sources. Idealist343 (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Every little event includes every time a game is announced. None of the coverage is in depth because they're just news articles, repeating what the developer has announced. There are no previews, interviews, reviews, features on the game. There are video game kickstarters running all the time, and lots of them get news coverage in IGN, Gamespot et al. Right now, there's news stories for Invisigun Heroes, Consortium: The Tower, Knights and Bikes, and others. The only difference is in popularity, not notability. We regularly delete articles that are essentially product announcements as
    n 19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim Feinberg

    Kim Feinberg (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 whose claim to fame is founding a non profit. Fails GNG IMO Gbawden (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. No evidence has been presented which shows Wilton has been covered significantly (not via passing mentions) by multiple reliable sources, and therefore is found to lack the required notability for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Luke Wilton

    Luke Wilton (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 boxer. Fails

    WP:NBOX and therefore Delete. Suarez Mason (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    ✈ 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    ✈ 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mdtemp added that to the article, but I haven't yet decided how to vote. Without meeting
    WP:NBOX notwithstanding. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    losing a British title fails
    WP:TOOSOON. --Suarez Mason (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a similar argument to one you used before when you said the only way to refute a fighter's notability was, in that case, be a fluent speaker of Polish and go to Poland and prove there wasn't significant independent coverage. Advocating going to the fight location would probably only produce routine sports reporting (promotion and results) so it's irrelevant. Since this article doesn't appear to meet
    WP:NBOX is relevant. National runners-up in other sports aren't deemed automatically notable so why is it so in boxing? Papaursa (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    And for the article you are referring to the decision was no consensus so its not like my argument was crazy/off the wall or that it was completely discounted. Similar argument and similar logic here - we have presumptions for a reason and a 5 minute Google search finding nothing is hardly evidence of anything. I hold a presumption is valid until reasonably shown otherwise. To your other comment, other sports do have their national runners-up presumed notable. In golf, the U.S. Open is the national championship. Not only the runner-up is notable, but so is the guy finishing in 70th place. The 3rd place competitor at the badminton Canadian Open is presumed notable. Yes, those are open events so its a bit different I will admit, but they are generally considered national championships and they go beyond just the winner. Additionally, this is a bit different of a situation. Not only is the BBBofC more of an exception (to my knowledge, only the US and UK have 'national' titles awarded that confer notability so this would be for only two nations), but in a sporting context its questionable if the UK is a country or multiple countries. In soccer, rugby, and cricket England and Wales compete as nations. Same goes for athletics in the Commonwealth Games (something that finishing lower than 1st can still give a presumption of notability). The BBBofC does award, for example, Welsh and English titles. So its reasonable to treat the BBBofC as a regional body as opposed to a national body. Likewise, its reasonable to not place someone losing their British title as being national runner-up, as you would the loser of the BBBofC Northern Ireland title, but instead treat them as the runner-up in a regional contest as we do for the Asian Games in athletics.RonSigPi (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fails
    WP:NBOX. Could be deleted on either account. --Suarez Mason (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    RonSigPi has proposed here
    BBBofC is an international organization equivalent to Asia's because it has subregions and that losing a title fight is equivalent to finishing second at an event like the Asian Games. It is more proper to say that it's equivalent to finishing last in a two person event as opposed to finishing second in an event with numerous competitors from many countries. Papaursa (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It does not matter what is proposed, but what
    WP:NBOX states now. My proposal was not my personal thoughts, but my best read on the consensus (I even said so much in my message to you). As anyone can clearly see, my proposal is being defeated quite handily so I am not sure what your point actually is. Regardless of the point trying to be made, I stand by my argument. We have SNG for a reason. They give a presumption that an article's subject is notable. It is up to those that want to see the article deleted to establish that the presumption is wrong in this case and therefore the article should be deleted. You may not like the SNG and the presumption the BBBofC title gives, but the presumption exists none the less and it must be respected. Until someone shows that efforts have been made to search the areas one may find sources, and that includes local print and non-print sources and the like that may not make it online, then I presume it likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria. RonSigPi (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Localised coverage from reliable sources is perfectly acceptable -- that is what it is most of the time! And GNG can be easily established with a 5-minute cursory search, as I have elaborated on below. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please articulate? As
    WP:NBOX should be ignored, but another to agree with an already disproved nom. RonSigPi (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    My apologise. I didn't realise the etiquette.--Suarez Mason (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    Spartaz Humbug! 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], in popular culture!, [27]... Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As a new editor I would point out the fact that routine sports coverage is not considered as meeting
    WP:GNG--and fight results are considered routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I was confused by the bad grammar -- are you the new editor? Anyway, I respectfully disagree. Both GNG and V are fulfilled, and the sheer wealth of sources, local or not, in-depth or not, prove so. It is not always the case that notability can only be shown with a really thorough source. Breadth over a period of time can overcome depth. Most significantly, he has received sustained coverage in Belfast as an up-and-coming boxer. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    he does not pass GNG. Purely trivial coverage. Also fails
    WP:NBOX as he hasn't won a notable title. --Suarez Mason (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    So you indeed are the new editor -- can infer so. Was trying to draw logical link to your 'as a new editor' statement; turns out that had not much purpose except for enforcing the opposite. I suggest, instead of badgering your points, you should try to digest my arguments, as well as RonSigPi's, and the policies GNG, SNG, etc. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Brain not working at this time, forgot there were a few entities, didn't look at the timestamps. Nonetheless my points stand. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI TOOSOON is not a policy. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete
      WP:N requires "significant coverage" that I'm not seeing. Kingoflettuce's claims that lots of passing mentions are enough is wrong. Routine sports coverage is what he currently has. WP requires someone be notable and "up and coming" means he's not there yet.Mdtemp (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The fact that he warrants coverage in a reputable and reliable source, routine or not, over a sustained period of time (few years) is enough to establish GNG at the barest levels. And much insight is to be gleaned from these sources. There's plenty more to be found, the state of the article now is independent of the subject's notability. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Routine coverage is never enough to show notability on its own. Please don't make up your own notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and draft & userfy instead because this article still needs work until solidly available at mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per Mdtemp. Fails NBOX, as a bunch of fight result reports isn't enough to overcome the complete lack of significant coverage. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Diego José Tobón Echeverri

    Diego José Tobón Echeverri (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:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable including being an ambassador to Russia. there's coverage for a football player "Diego Echeverri" but not this ambassador. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, all ambassadors are significant, interesting and unusual enough to deserve attention and therefore satisfy the criteria to that effect set out in the introduction of WP:BIO. They are accordingly notable. I also agree with the argument, sometimes advanced by User:Necrothesp that this would alternatively follow from WP:COMMONSENSE. A person who is verifiably an ambassador should, at an absolute minimum, be included in, and redirected to, the relevant parent article, which in this case would be Ambassador of Colombia to Russia. Accordingly, as a plausible redirect with merge-able content, this article appears ineligible for deletion. I haven't analysed all the sources yet, and it is not helpful that they are mostly in foreign languages, but there does seem to be a 26 minute television programme. James500 (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, ambassadors are not inherently notable and community consensus has shown this. This article is not ineligible for deletion. Lastly you have now popped up recently at many AfDs I've been involved in as well as contacting an editor I've been in disagreement in and conveniently siding with him. I'm noting this now for future action. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that such a consensus exists was rejected at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. You know perfectly well that I have been editing at WP:DSBILATERAL, and bilateral relations related pages generally, for months. I didn't side with any editor, I attempted to explain to an editor how to cite sources, and your response was to start pestering me for no reason. The purpose of my presence at this AfD is to enforce Wikipedia's inclusion policies and guidelines. You pop up in many places that I go on this site, and contact and side with editors that I have disagreements with. You might like to bear in mind WP:AVOIDYOU before making any further off topic comments. James500 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapsing extended discussion

    So why this constant following me around the last 48 hours? LibStar (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't done that. Even if I had, it would be legitimate if done for the purpose of enforcing policies and guidelines. And you, in my opinion, have broken a lot of those in the last 48 hours or whatever. This nomination is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others such as Necrothesp, an example of that. We are getting wildly off topic here. James500 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    your edit history shows clearly you are following me. You're not picking these AfDs at random. LibStar (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Both AfDs are on
    ownership of that deletion sorting list. James500 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Not only popping out at AfDs but contacting editors I've had disagreements with and conveniently siding with them. Also in the last 48 hours LibStar (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You've already made that accusation and received an answer. WP:BLUDGEON. James500 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can see out of your edits from 6 February, 90% of them are on AfDs I am involved in, and article prodded and contacting and taking sides with an editor I've had disagreement with. The pattern and your motive is plainly obvious. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There exists a WP:PRODLIST. The only PROD I have removed recently is one that was placed on a notable topic and told epic lies about the level of sourcing available. That was an appropriate removal to enforce the notability guidelines and the policy against disruptive behaviour. Your statistic is fictitious, and the rest of your accusations have been answered. James500 (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Then how did you find HoldenV8? LibStar (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Irrelevant. And by telling the editor how to cite sources properly I was actually helping you. Unless you are upset that, since the editor won't make the same mistake of failing to cite his source in the future, you won't have any further reason to criticise him. James500 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You found HoldenV8 by following my edit history. Just like you've been doing the last 48 hours . It's highly relevant how you found him. Your response here just confirms this. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    the only way you could have found Holden was by following my edit history. You've never worked on rugby league articles so there is no other explanation. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What possible objection could you have to me telling someone how to cite sources properly? And how do you know that I don't read articles on rugby league and other sports besides? I read huge numbers of articles about film and television for many years before I started actually sticking my beak into a few of them. And yes, I do read articles about rugby league. And I have edited sports related project pages. In fact, I read almost everything, because I am one of those polymath super geniuses you have heard so much about. James500 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to following me around and if it was only about citing sources the tone of your comments and subsequent defence of him show your real motive. Again you still haven't said how you found Holden besides the usual diversionary excuse making. Read almost everything , pull the other one. We both know you have been following my edit history looking for an opportunity to pounce. LibStar (talk)
    And how would you know whether I edit rugby league articles, unless you've been following me for a very long time? And I didn't make any further comments about HoldenV8 until you insulted me for no reason at all (provocation) and then I noticed how abrasive your previous comments towards the other editor were (justification, ie enforcing the civility policy) and then you placed an erroneous warning template right in front of my eyes as I was talking to the pair of you (more justification). The tone of my subsequent comments indicates that I don't like unprovoked impudence being put on my talk page for no reason and I don't approve of needless rudeness. James500 (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Simple question. Which rugby league articles have you been working on that made you encounter HoldenV8? Please provide a diff. Otherwise we both know the real way you found him. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Simple answer: Irrelevant. I do not need your permission to try to help an editor to cite their sources properly. And the moment you put an unprovoked false accusation on my talk page, WP:BOOMERANG came into effect against you. Nor would it even matter as we are entitled to follow editors to enforce policies and guidelines, and you can't accuse me of anything that does not consist of enforcing them. James500 (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It is highly relevant in proving my claim you are following me. You didn't encounter HoldenV8 by random (if you did you would have easily provided a diff to prove this). Your excuse making is fooling no one. And your motivations for recent following me around is clear. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You've already said this, and you have had an answer. WP:BLUDGEON. I think you know perfectly well that I !voted the way I did above because I think that ambassadors are notable, something that I have said many times before for years. James500 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You claimed to find HoldenV8 via your editing of rugby league articles. When asked to provide evidence you failed. Of course you'll respond with some long winded excuse. LibStar (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't claim any such thing. I point blank refused to answer your question on grounds of irrelevance. I did profess to read articles on rugby league, but I didn't say whether that was how I became aware of that editor, because it is irrelevant and, frankly, none of your business. I said that I did not edit rugby league articles, but that your knowledge of this was proof that you have been following my edits for many months. James500 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The irrelevant card is such a diversion from you using my edit history to find HoldenV8 and then side with them to have a go at me. Factored in with you following me on AfDs last 24 hours it's an obvious pattern. Anyone can see your edit history. LibStar (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No, LibStar, the sequence of events is that you had a go at me first because I innocently tried to explain to that user how to cite a DVD as a source. James500 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Again you have failed to explain how you came across Holden. The fact that you keep giving diversionary responses clearly points you to using my edit history, there are 10s of 1000s of editors and by sheer chance you stumbled onto one. That is relevant because you've gone on a 24 hour pattern of following me since then . Yet the hilarious excuse making continues. LibStar (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And what happened after that was the result of your failure to control your paranoia in twice accusing other editors of things they had not done. As you are failing to control it now. I don't see a pattern, and if there was one, it does not matter, as I have acted only to enforce policies and guidelines. James500 (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You also didn't deprod anything else out of all the articles on the list. OF course when you saw it was me it was immediate action stations. Your fake innocence is fooling no one. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, when I saw that the PROD was on a film festival (I like films), that the topic was notable, and that the PROD told epic lies about the level of sourcing available, it was immediate action stations. James500 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Any one with eyes in their head could see that you are trying to disrupt this AfD with a massive wall of off topic comments. James500 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:KETTLE if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    KETTLE, with bells on, could be applied to every accusation you have made here. James500 (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a long history of barracking anyone who argues for the application of WP:IAR at WP:DSBILATERAL, and you are just proving that now. James500 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You have a long history of arguing verbosely in MfD and AfDs to the point where an admin recently warned you about your personal attacks. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This, even if it was accurate, would be totally irrelevant. And if you don't like verbosity, the thing to do would be to stop trying to force me to answer you over and over again by making further accusations. James500 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right you're never wrong and also love to respond to every comment contrary to your view. Just to prove it, see if you can't resist responding below. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can see you've just nominated the parent article Ambassador of Colombia to Russia for deletion. All that would mean is that, at worst, both articles would be merged and redirected to Colombia–Russia relations. It fundamentally changes nothing. James500 (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    BOP (computing)

    BOP (computing) (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)

    Incomprehensible content. The article appears to claim that BOP is some sort of protocol for some sort of serialization for some sort of objects (as in objects from object-orientated programming?) that is "defined in every programming languages (sic)". This is completely devoid of any context. What does "protocol", "serialization", and "objects" refer to? The claim that this is something defined for every programming language is highly dubious and is unsupported by any citations or references (the article actually has none). The article then claims that the "protocol" can be "extended" with "other custom serialization". If this is something defined in every programming language, then how can it extended by the end-user, given programming languages are defined separately by their respective standards bodies? The article then goes on to say something about a JavaScript library. If the article is actually about this specific JavaScript library, then the article fails

    speedy deletion, but given this article's nature, I thought some discussion regarding its fate was warranted. AZ1199 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep.

    (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Reetika Khera

    Reetika Khera (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 topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. Uncletomwood (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 09:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep perhaps if the citations suggest a keepable article.Delete perhaps as there seem to be not convincing signs of the applicable notability aside from the imaginable Associate Professor at the Institute of Technology. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Apparently notable based on the citations to her work: Google Scholar shows citations of 137, 139, 109, 102, 88, 83, 69, 65, 59 ... etc. I've added the information to the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As DGG demonstrates, citations are conclusive pass of PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep now that the article has been improved and there are no serious concerns for AfD (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tchindas

    Tchindas (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)

    Reason μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no proof of notability, and the article was apparently created by a sock of the indeffed user:Neptunekh who has be forbidden from creating categories, for which see the user's talk page history. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to the fact that this article seems to have been created by an indeffed sock User:Mito9999 of the indeffed user:Neptunekh, it began as a cut and paste copyvio and no other source has been given. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
      Talk to my owner:Online 03:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    ✈ 05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    ✈ 05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Fine, then I hope folks will look to my attentions as a
      improved by someone uninvolved and not-a-sock, let's not dwell on how it got here. Thanks.Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: enough sources have been added to show this is a notable and prize-winning film. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, why is this still open? Keep it per
      WP:HEY, actual sourcin makes this film notable beyond any reasonable doubt. Cavarrone 20:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ropewalk (film)

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

    The article is unsourced and it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    ✈ 05:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    alts:
    year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
    aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete at best as there are no signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Deryck C. 16:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary Vandy

    Gary Vandy (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:CREATIVE. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Pgeezy

    Pgeezy (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)

    Artist from

    WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.

    Spartaz Humbug! 12:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Natalac Records

    Natalac Records (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)

    Record label and fails

    WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources that cover it in-depth. Listed artists may also be non-notable (some are listed as "incarcerated, probation, or deceased"). CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Delete. No significant coverage from reliable sources. I note that the MTV site used as a reference for several statements is user-generated. And the prlog.com site is just that -- a repository for press releases. None of these references are independent of the subject organization. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 19:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as none of the current article and coverage is convincing enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete due to lack of evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete. Max Semenik (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    BucketMan - Coloring your city

    BucketMan - Coloring your city (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)

    Articles is written by the game developer himself; Game itself appears to be not notable. No third-party sources. Author is not willing to follow

    WP:COI. Hawks Discuss edits 03:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Those are all sources written or copied by you. Let me say it bluntly: You are not allowed to create an article about your own game. When you have third sources, we will reconsider. But as it stands now, this article has no place here. Third sources constitute something written by a reputable source, by an unbiased author who is in no way or form connected to you. --Hawks Discuss edits 14:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add for authors sake,
    WP:COI doesn't preclude creating content about something one is associated with. It is however highly inadvisable for many good reasons. Certainly using self-written sourcing is a big no-no. A good rule is to simply not write anything, and if the topic is notable, someone is bound to make an article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaleigh Schrock

    Kaleigh Schrock (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 league player whose entire career was with one team. John from Idegon (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 15:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Electrical Impedance Tomography Reconstruction Software

    Note
    Article has been renamed
    Electrical Impedance and Diffuse Optical Tomography Reconstruction Software
    talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
    )
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable software. References all seem to be papers announcing or promoting the software, written by its creators. No third party references or sources, and a search turns up none. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The lack of references is probably as the title is wrong, if the article is about EIDORS specifically It was EIDORS but the title was changed. However it is certainly widely used. This paper has over 200 citations for example [28] This one over 100 (according to Google Scholar [29]. Is that enough to be notable or not? Most groups working on biomedical or process EIT use it, but those are small scientific communities (with annual scientific meetings attended by around 150 people for example).Billlion (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A Google Scholar search for EIDORS gives over 600 articles [30] Billlion (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The citation count is used
    for academics, not software projects, and even for academics it should be used with care. In this case it may be helpful in finding references but does not on its own prove notability, no more than a Google search. I did search on EIDORS, it seemed far more likely to turn up references than the current longer title, but I found nothing.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Of course it is true that a citation count is an academic measure. However, it is relevant to the question on notability. Widely used software is notable. And a large citation count is one measure of the use of the software. Also, however, the title of the article is wrong, EIDORS is "Electrical Impedance Tomography and Diffuse Optical Tomography Reconstruction Software". As a minimum, the article title should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.63.148 (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    JohnBlackburne I am confused as to what the Google search you did that did not convince you of notability. Of course Google will not give the same results for different locations and users, but I did a Google search for EIDORS and it comes up with a mixture of academic publications (by plenty of people who are not the authors of the software) and web sites from academic users. It says it returns around 8000 hits and the ones I sampled were all on this software (not some other use of the word). I am unclear what kind of notability you are expecting to find in a google search about a software toolbox. Here is a link to the search I just did, although it might produce different results for you [31]. You claim that there are "No third party references or sources" but you already admit that is not true as there are hundreds of academic papers not by the authors that mention that they used EIDORS. Then you change your claim to somehow say academic citations do not count. Do you mean some other sort of notoriety is needed like coverage in the popular press? You say a search turns up none, but certainly a Google search contradicts that. Can I suggest that the case for deletion is withdrawn and instead it is moved back to the correct articlename? And maybe tagged for improvement for example that the article should cite articles by users other than the authors (in a meaningful way to say how it is used in different applications). Billlion (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See
    which requires “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. Google may help you find such sources but the search itself is not evidence.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    OK
    which requires “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. If not can you say roughly how many references to independent journal articles would satisfy of notability, or if you would expect them to satisfy some additional criterion? Billlion (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I had another look at
    WP:GNG "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." So perhaps I was wrong to add all those sources to the article to establish notability. In any case I tried to do it in a way that is useful for the article so that is OK. The point is that according to the above one should check before nomination for deletion on notability grounds. I think what happened is you tried to do that but in good faith used the wrong title (and the title had been changed in good faith too), and you found no evidence for notability. On the other hand I pointed out that if you searched for EIDORS (and the search for EIDORS in Google Scholar appear, for me at least as an automated link in the AFD page) it shows up hundreds of independent reliable sources. I suggest therefore that the nomination for deletion is an unfortunate mistake and that you withdraw it (if that is possible procedurally) rather it actually going for a vote (so far no one has voted as such, but maybe that is normal. I have been editing Wikipedia for 11 years but not so regularly and policies and mechanisms do change and I don't keep up).Billlion (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I read up on the mechanism. What I was thinking of was speedy keep'.
    WP:SK. JohnBlackburne
    could you do that if you accept the argument above otherwise I think an admin has to close the debate after 7 days have elapsed.
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep but rename Notability established as above, and nomination for deletion was in my opinion, a confusion caused by the wrong article name. But article name should be reverted to EIDORS. One problem with moving it to a section of Electrical impedance tomography is that that article is curently about biomedical applications of EIT, while Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) covers the geophysical case and industrial process tomography is now only covered in Industrial process imaging. See references inEIDORS article for uses in a variety on non medical areas. If EIDORS were to be merged it would have to be a section in a new article Calderon's inverse boundary value problem which would cover the mathematical problem irrespective of application Billlion (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As it is relisted perhaps some users of EIDORS get a chance to look at this as the article certainly needs some improvement. As there is plenty of open source example images and meshes on the EIDORS web site and some of those could be used to illustrate the article. The idea of an article on Calderon's problem generally is growing on me, and I hope to start this irrespective of the outcome of the debate. The subject of electrical imaging is a difficult one for Wikipedia in that it appears different to the different communities medical, industrial and geophysical even though mathematically they are doing the same thing. I think a mathematical article that covers both uniqueness and stability of solution and numerical methods of inversion sounds like a good idea as then the application articles can focus on what is specific to those areas.Billlion (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: While the article is certainly under-developed, EIDORS is definitely notable. It is widely used in research on Electrical Impedance Tomography (aka ERT). In fact, it is frequently used as the gold standard implementation against which new algorithms are compared (e.g. [1][2], recent scientific articles by authors not associated with EIDORS). As Billion argues, scientific articles are the best independent reliable sources for this scientific software. Bgrychtol (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an open-access article example: Saeedizadeh N, Kermani S, Rabbani H. A Comparison between the hp-version of Finite Element Method with EIDORS for Electrical Impedance Tomography. Journal of Medical Signals and Sensors. 2011;1(3):200-205. [3]/ Bgrychtol (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename: The article title should be (or contain) "EIDORS", such as e.g. on the EIDORS website: "EIDORS: Electrical Impedance Tomography and Diffuse Optical Tomography Reconstruction Software" [4]. "Electrical Impedance Tomography Reconstruction Software" is too generic and could as well contain a list. Bgrychtol (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - while it's hard to establish (GNG-)notability without the access to paywalled papers, there are indications that coverage rather than mere mention of the software takes place - e.g. " More recently, the application of image reconstruction to a specific tomography problem has become simplified by the introduction of user-defined functions implemented from Electrical Impedance and Diffuse Optical Reconstruction Software (EIDORS)."
    Moreover articles such as that included in Computer Networks and Intelligent Computing: 5th International Conference on Information Processing, ICIP 2011, Bangalore, India, August 5-7, 2011. Proceedings on page 622 cover the software before moving on to modifications and other matters.
    There is reason to believe that sufficient independent reliable coverage exists to keep this article.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 16:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    1. ^ http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7020959
    2. ^ http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6701621
    3. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3347226/
    4. ^ http://eidors3d.sourceforge.net/
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Phoenix Film Festival

    Phoenix Film Festival (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)

    After 10 years this article still has not acquired a single independent reliable source. An Internet search turns up multiple sources that lack independence and trivial mentions in other contexts. Article needs to have multiple independent reliable sources that indicate that the festival itself has been their non-trivial subject. KDS4444Talk 01:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm finding some sources like this and this. They're brief, but they're not really press releases or routine notifications per se. I think that the easiest way to assert notability here might be to see how many places have republished their awards results.
      (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • This looks promising.
      (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • The focus of this article. So far I'm finding mostly local sources and not really any reprints of award results. I'm seeing where other newspapers have commented on specific recipients, but not really general awards announcements.
      (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Consensus to delete is clear following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ReelHeART International Film Festival

    ReelHeART International Film Festival (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)

    Subject does not appear to have received non-trivial coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Article contains no sources of its own (after 10 years), and an Internet search turns up Twitter, Facebook, IMDb, etc. KDS4444Talk 01:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Delete. zero reliable evidence for notability.DGG (talk), 1:34, February 3 2016
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for now as this is a questionably notable local festival. BTW, Northamerica1000, you may want to know I was typing this as you relisted (edit conflict). SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a public relations platform on which every film festival that exists gets to keep a profile for promotional purposes — which is indeed at least partially what's going on here, as the article has been extensively edited in the past by
      self-published press releases on PRWeb. This is not how a film festival gets a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Procedural Close. Test AFD. I'm assuming Twinkle passed the test and will live another day.

    (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    User:Jmatazzoni/sandbox

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

    Jmatazzoni (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Owens Park

    AfDs for this article:
    Owens Park (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 much encyclopaedic information; not notable on its own - It is included in the Fallowfield Campus article. ツStacey (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    ✈ 01:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I don't really see any change in notability since the 2007 AfD. For that reason I would still make similar comments, that the tower is notable as a local landmark, and that the groups that have formed there (The Chemical Brothers, Van der Graaf Generator) make it worth keeping. The article still needs improvement, however. --David Edgar (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid the groups that formed there might be completely false - I find no evidence of them anywhere (though some lazy newspapers have since copied it from the article) ツStacey (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 01:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think the 'list' style you might be referring to is the Fallowfield Campus article which includes all the buildings within the campus. In that article it only includes the sourced and useful information.. This Owens Park article unfortunately includes a lot of fluff, possible incorrect information and is largely un-sourced.ツStacey (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect perhaps where it is mentioned at the University of Manchester article as this is questionably independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rise Up (Colors of Peace)

    Rise Up (Colors of Peace) (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

    Fethullah Gulen. — kashmiri TALK 23:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC) — kashmiri TALK 23:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    ✈ 01:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    ✈ 01:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 01:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    AF107

    AF107 (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

    WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid assertion unless backed up by sources, so - can anyone find anything? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 00:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to

    (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Firs Botanical Grounds

    Firs Botanical Grounds (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 much information; no references; not notable - It is included in the Fallowfield Campus article under 'Facilities' ツStacey (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom (with no prejudice to the creation of a redirect). Neutralitytalk 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 00:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.

    Spartaz Humbug! 11:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Flashpoint Studios

    AfDs for this article:
    Flashpoint Studios (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)

    Due to some events this past year, it has come to my attention that there are some articles and images regarding me and my former business on Wikipedia. And while eager and well-meaning, I believe a former associate of mine is responsible, at least in part, for this content. Both articles either contain some privileged information or general inaccuracies. I’m not really sure why this article even still exists. I would have to agree with the article’s notation of questionable notability. Flashpoint Studios, now discontinued, was simply a consultation and promotional arm of my core media development company. And while it is tied to some high-profile projects, it’s more of a footnote and hardly seems noteworthy to your global audience. And, it contains some inaccuracies and wording that can be misleading. Kevin carvell (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    ✈ 01:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: User has also proposed that the Kevin Carvell article be deleted. ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 06:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - The Kevin Carvell AFD ended as Delete on 26 January 2016 --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as well because my searches found nothing better than a few links with "Flashpoint Studios". SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Julian Bunetta

    Julian Bunetta (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)

    vanity page, fails

    WP:GNG, no secondary sources at all -- Y not? 17:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    PlayMillion.com

    PlayMillion.com (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)

    Online gambling site that does not meet

    WP:RS. Claim is that it is ranked as one of the top 100 worldwide gaming sites. Claim is dubious and not supported by reliable source. CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    That is a dubious honor, but where are the reliable sources that discuss this? I see the sources, but I do not see any reliable source that would meet
    WP:RS. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    For example, the Canadian Gambling Insider article links out to PlayMillion.com. However, if you look close, it is an affiliate link to the site. A publication that is unbiased and has editorial oversight is not likely to include an affiliate links like that within an article. The only reason to do so is to make money which shows that the article is likely written to drive traffic to PlayMillion.com - and referral revenue for CGI. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    According to me, meets of WP:RS. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     22:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 19:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep without prejudice against a future merger into a list article of Casio calculators when one is written. The discussion below reached a rough consensus that we ought to keep some description of this (and most other) Casio calculator series, as the information can be sourced and there exists independent media coverage to make them notable. An eventual merge into a list article may be a better way to present the information, but there is little appetite for outright deletion. Deryck C. 16:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Casio 9860 series

    Casio 9860 series (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, no indication of notability. Essentially a fansite. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I don't see the problem with keeping articles about individual models/series of electronic calculators from major manufacturers, provided they have substantial content (as this one does). In terms of notability, there are media references to this series of calculators (e.g. [35]). In any event, how is this worse than having an article on an individual model/series of cars? SJK (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 00:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Casio 9860 series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Casio fx-991ES

    Casio fx-991ES (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, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Casio FX-702P. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Casio FP-10

    Casio FP-10 (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, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Redirect I added some of the article's tiny contents to Casio_FX-702P#Interface. Information about FP-10 already existed there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This AFD and other Casio product AFDs is not a good way to discuss better editing, I mean real editing like a book publisher does, of Wikipedia's coverage of Category:Programmable calculators or of Casio products (see Casio#Calculators). How about write an essay evaluating the coverage of TI and Casio and HP and Sharp and IBM calculators, and propose how it should all be consolidated into list-articles (perhaps, or whatever), and have an RFC about it. Singling out the Casio ones, or just selected Casio ones, doesn't produce a useful consensus that would stick. Maybe there is less detail about Casio ones than TI ones, and the TI ones should be reduced. Where should we draw a line? And, note that it would be better to redirect this and other Casio calculator articles to a list-article of them, than to outright delete the material, to preserve material that can be merged and refined. Create the list-article first, following example of Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators, perhaps. --doncram 00:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to a list or main article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Casio FX-603P. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Casio FA-6

    Casio FA-6 (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, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Redirect I added some of the article's tiny contents to Casio_FX-603P#Interface. Information about FA-6 already existed there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This AFD and other Casio product AFDs is not a good way to discuss better editing, I mean real editing like a book publisher does, of Wikipedia's coverage of Category:Programmable calculators or of Casio products (see Casio#Calculators). How about write an essay evaluating the coverage of TI and Casio and HP and Sharp and IBM calculators, and propose how it should all be consolidated into list-articles (perhaps, or whatever), and have an RFC about it. (And Mr. Magoo and McBarker's edits mentioned are much less than creating a decent list-article.) Singling out the Casio ones, or just selected Casio ones, doesn't produce a useful consensus that would stick. Maybe there is less detail about Casio ones than TI ones, and the TI ones should be reduced. Where should we draw a line? And, note that it would be better to redirect this and other Casio calculator articles to a list-article of them, than to outright delete the material, to preserve material that can be merged and refined. Create the list-article first, following example of Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators, perhaps. --doncram 00:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to a list or main article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Casio FX-502P series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Casio FA-1

    Casio FA-1 (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, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Redirect I added some of the article's tiny contents to Casio_FX-502P_series#Interface. Information about FA-1 already existed there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This AFD and other Casio product AFDs is not a good way to discuss better editing, I mean real editing like a book publisher does, of Wikipedia's coverage of Category:Programmable calculators or of Casio products (see Casio#Calculators). How about write an essay evaluating the coverage of TI and Casio and HP and Sharp and IBM calculators, and propose how it should all be consolidated into list-articles (perhaps, or whatever), and have an RFC about it. (And Mr. Magoo and McBarker's edits mentioned are much less than creating a decent list-article.) Singling out the Casio ones, or just selected Casio ones, doesn't produce a useful consensus that would stick. Maybe there is less detail about Casio ones than TI ones, and the TI ones should be reduced. Where should we draw a line? And, note that it would be better to redirect this and other Casio calculator articles to a list-article of them, than to outright delete the material, to preserve material that can be merged and refined. Create the list-article first, following example of Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators, perhaps. --doncram 00:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to a list or main article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Casio FX-602P series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Casio FA-2

    Casio FA-2 (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, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep This is a perfectly good article. There is no need to let this deletionist rid wikipedia of all information on Casio. This evil person is launching a jihad of censorship against Casio and needs to be stopped. Malcolm's office (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 07:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User has made no edits elsewhere. Wonder who the sockmaster is. GABHello! 00:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick checkuser maybe? BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 01:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead, but I'm unsure who the master would be... GABHello! 20:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick checkuser request is now open. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 19:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    (conjugate) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Redirect I added some of the article's tiny contents to Casio_FX-602P_series#Interface. Information about FA-2 already existed there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This AFD and other Casio product AFDs is not a good way to discuss better editing, I mean real editing like a book publisher does, of Wikipedia's coverage of Category:Programmable calculators or of Casio products (see Casio#Calculators). How about write an essay evaluating the coverage of TI and Casio and HP and Sharp and IBM calculators, and propose how it should all be consolidated into list-articles (perhaps, or whatever), and have an RFC about it. (And Mr. Magoo and McBarker's edits mentioned are much less than creating a decent list-article.) Singling out the Casio ones, or just selected Casio ones, doesn't produce a useful consensus that would stick. Maybe there is less detail about Casio ones than TI ones, and the TI ones should be reduced. Where should we draw a line? And, note that it would be better to redirect this and other Casio calculator articles to a list-article of them, than to outright delete the material, to preserve material that can be merged and refined. Create the list-article first, following example of Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators, perhaps. --doncram 00:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to a list or main article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    XXYYXX (album)

    XXYYXX (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)

    While the concept of a 16-year-old making a record like this does sound interesting, the album lacks notability in independent sources. All sputnikmusic reviews of this album are user reviews, and most reviews I found using google searches are basically unreliable blog and wordpress posts. I can't say this record meets

    WP:NALBUMS. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 21:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete at best as none of this is convincing for a serpatate article. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yasuhiro Kawakami

    Yasuhiro Kawakami (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)

    Japanese composer with a handful of game credits, but I don't think those credits establish notability. It's a well formatted article but I really can't find anything on this guy. The only noteworthy claim is that he was on the "most collaborated soundtrack" by Square, which if you think about it, is kind of a spurious superlative. JP Wikipedia isn't a help either. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Composer working on notable games doesn't make composer notable. Most sources are first-party, GameSpot is technical info. --Soetermans. T / C 21:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - yeah, it's a credits list; the prose is pretty much the credit list again, but with some citations that only prove that he worked on said games. There's nothing in there about Kawakami himself, beyond that he worked at company X doing games Y-Z. Most collaborated soundtrack by Square isn't saying much, since the successor company Square Enix has had games with twice as many composers only a few years later. --PresN 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- Let's all say it together now, "Notability is not Inherited". The work itself is notable, but he is not. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete perhaps abd draft & userfy instead as this article is still questionable for an article. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_February_3&oldid=1142622894"