Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 March	19 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep as this seems clear enough to not continue (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcy Blum

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

No claim of significant notability; fails WP:GNG. NOTE: Editors may wish to also review previous versions; recent rollback due to copyvio concerns. -

'c.s.n.s.' 23:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. I'm leaning toward keep. Here's some coverage I found: [1] from The New York Observer, [2] from The New York Sun, [3] from New York, and [4] from People (a profile from 1976). Also, she was selected "Best Wedding Planner" by New York magazine in 2001. The Wikipedia article claimed 2005, too, but I can't find that at nymag.com. There are also some hits on Google Books, such as [5] from New York and some archived hits from The New York Times Magazine, but Google Books doesn't have a preview for them. The coverage is heavily slanted toward New York media, especially New York magazine, but these are not small publications. Some of these articles are a bit short, and I found a few more that were even shorter, but I think it's probably enough to demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this should be kept. She was also named as one of the world's best wedding planners by Vogue, "[6]" and Harper's Bazaar "[7]" GummyBears2014 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC) — Gummybears2014 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - The article needs work, but the People and The New York Sun references that NinjaRobotPirate found contain sufficient biographical information to construct a decent biography, and satisfy
WP:GNG
when combined with available paragraphs from the various other independent reliable sources cited.

The lists of soft news and talk shows does not strike me as encyclopedia-worthy. To borrow a name from her client list, Billy Joel has no doubt appeared on many similar infotainment programs, but we don't list them in his biography because they aren't why Joel is notable. They aren't defining, they're just part of celebrity. Similarly, rather than speling out every publication that has run an article to which she contributed, summarize the topics she has written about and type of publications (e.g. bridal, lifestyle) she has written for, unless she was a regular columnist for one or more of them. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is quite a significant amount of coverage of her. The king of the sun (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per NinjaRobotPirate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Paul Thomas

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

Most of the references are to other Wikipedia articles (ie

WP:ANYBIO. Majora (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Some references don't mention him, others only just mention him, others are books by him rather than about him, others are Wikipedia articles. Also, the whole article is so promotional taht I think it would qualify for speedy deletion. The king of the sun (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all of this, despite the apparent list of sources, is still questionable for his applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont Hiebert

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

Lacking substantial references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, fails
WP:GNG. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to

flyer 14:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Austrian Journal of Statistics

Austrian Journal of Statistics (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 journal. Article claims indexing in
WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that the Austrian Journal of Statistics is a journal that is marked for deleteion. We exist since the 60's. We are listed at - Ulrichsweb - DOAJ - and many other indices. We are not in Scopus but it is already verfified. We are not in JCR, but we applied without success. We are open-access without fees for authors. We are not one of the non-serious journals that takes fees from the authors. We have a malfunction practice of 5 pages (see www.ajs.or.at). The organisation behind is the Austrian Statistical Society. Why such a journal should not be listed in Wikipedia? Only because we are not at the Thompson-Reuters list (JCR)? Can you believe that it is hard to get accepted by them when you are open-access without fees? We would be a too serious competitor for the traditional journals that takes horrible fees for open-access. Wikipedia should support free and open-access journals by listing them. Otherwise we do not have any chance against the Springer and Thompson-Reuters world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias99991 (talk • contribs) 11:09, March 6, 2016‎

I added a link to 2 listings of the journal (Australian Mathematical Society and DOAJ)alexkowa —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is a
neutral encyclopedia and not intended to support OA, Springer, Thomson-Reuters, or anything. thanks for adding those indices, but these are listings that are routinely removed from journal articles (as are, e.g., mentions of being included in GScholar) because they are not selective in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I would be surprised if such an old journal wouldn't meet our notability guidelines, but I agree that right now, there's little to support this journal's notability (scoring a C on the Australian Mathematical Society ranking is likewise not very impressive, given this makes it equal to the Smarandache Notions Journal [8]). Notability might be easier to established if looking up German sources. Creating an article on the
books} 19:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm surprised that a journal this long-established appears to be so unknown, but I couldn't find any good sources, also under the German name. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability by Wikipedia standards. The reasons given by the one editor (with a coi) wanting to keep it amount to saying that we should keep the article for promotional purposes, and so they are not consistent with Wikipedia policy ("Wikipedia should support free and open-access journals by listing them. Otherwise we do not have any chance against the Springer and Thompson-Reuters world.") The king of the sun (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if needed. Delete as all of this is questionable for the applicable journals (WP:MEDIA) notability. Asking DGG for education analysis. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of statistics journals. Update: Thanks go to DGG for the creating the Austrian Statistical Society article. It is the better redirect target. --Mark viking (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to the Society. If the article were not at AfD, I would normally do something like that by moving the article and adding a sentence or two. But to avoid confusion, I started the article Austrian Statistical Society as a stub, with a link to the article on the journal, and will transfer the material later, giving attribution. If anyone cares later, they can do a history merge; my rate of success in doing it properly is 50%, soI no longer attempt the procedure. The journal was known until recently as Osterreichische Zeitschrift für Statistik-- the history of changes of title is unclear from the OCLC record, but I'll track it down. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this seems clear for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Broughton Davies

William Broughton Davies (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)

Don't see a clear case for notability here Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I cleaned it up a bit and added a second source. It could be a lot longer, but I think it meets WP:N. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject seems notable as one of the first western educated doctors in the region. I found another source [9] and it seems more are available. Will add it when I have time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I agree, seems significant and notable, just needs more work Burroughs'10 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case for notability is crystal-clear, and supported by the books and scholarly papers found by the searches linked above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. I have found sources and updated the article abit. It will need some work done. Seems to be fine. (non-admin closure) TheDomain (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Donita Rose

Articles for deletion/Donita Rose (2nd nomination)

Donita Rose

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

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

Not a notable subject. Has been nominated in the past. Has only used one source since 2007. I can see some things on Google but unsure on the sources. If these can be confirmed and fixed for the article then I am happy to withdrawal. First time I have nominated anything for deletion. TheDomain (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 21:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough sources for her notability (the likes of ABS-CBN News, Pep, Philippine Star and others) - Supergabbyshoe

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General Consulate of Moroccan Empire in America

General Consulate of Moroccan Empire in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This two-liner about a "civil society organization" could be speedy-deleted A7 (no claim of significance), but I think it should have a full discussion in case of re-creation, because a previous version, deleted by PROD, made large and deceptive claims, and the article author, Sharifshakurbey (talk · contribs), who appears to be the "Supreme Grand Sheik" of the organization, has been trying to insert it in articles like Morocco-United States relations and List of diplomatic missions in the United States. The former Wikipedia article is also referenced on its Facebook page.
I have restored the history, so that the previous version can be seen here. That version claimed that Sharif Shakur Bey is "acting Consulate General, Minister of Diplomatic Relations... and Ambassador to the United Nations" and that the organization is "the diplomatic body that represents the Moroccan Empire." It was illustrated with this picture, which is actually the Moroccan Embassy in Stockholm.
The title "Empire of Morocco" was sometimes used in pre-colonial times, but there is no such entity now: the modern country is the
Kingdom of Morocco which has a Consulate General
in New York.
The claim to be "registered with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs" is true but not significant: UNDESA's register contains over 40,000 groups. The entry gives its headquarters address as "Moroccan Empire, Morocco".
Conclusion: the organization exists but is not
notable, and is attempting to use Wikipedia to imply bogus claims of diplomatic status and connection with the current Kingdom of Morocco. JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much to be said about this: no independent coverage whatsoever and clearly fails
WP:ORGIN etc. Based on the detail devoted to the Moorish Science Temple of America in the old version linked above I suspect it's a sovereign citizen invention. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The organisation (if it even exists) is simply not notable (no references). Setting that aside, it has a facebook page which is rated by 2 people (one of whom is the alleged ambassador). This ambassador also has a facebook page which describes him as "Social Economy Ministry, Human Rights Ministry at International Parliament USA, Minister of Diplomatic Affairs at GCMEA, Grand Commander of ION New York." There is no way I am going to believe that this is a serious organisation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, if not an outright hoax. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also did a search on this and could find nothing to support notability. I agree with the previous comments and that the alleged organization is either a non-notable sovereign citizen invention or a hoax. Donner60 (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I checked before, I labelled this as a hoax. It only seemed to be referenced by a wordpress blog and attempts on Wikipedia. Certainly it is non-notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per my comments below.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Sony's Creation: The Legit Version

Sony's Creation: The Legit Version (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)

Per this comment, this entire page is allegedly a satirical piece for a school assignment. There's nothing sourced and nothing useful here. At best, it could be moved to draftspace but I'm moving to delete as inappropriate. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Normally I'm all for saving student assignments somewhere, but this is completely inappropriate, both as an article and as an assignment. This could probably be speedied as blatant vandalism, since either way (as a student joke or teacher assignment) this is clearly meant to be a non-useful article.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

~~This would seem to be complete tripe. Why was it de-speedied?~~ I've deletion sorted it, so as to get some daylight on this student assignment.
talk) 16:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I stand corrected. The article does not seem to have been made up and Afd does seem to be the correct venue.
talk) 17:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I don't know if it is satire, but at first glance it does look like a referenced article comparing histories of Sony in terms of their legitimacy. But I don't see why this needs a different article when there's already an article History of Sony. Perhaps there could be a merge of some of this information, but it would take considerable effort. It's hard to trust an article that the first author calls satire that he wants deleted once it is completed. Michitaro (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to go ahead and just delete this, since I don't see it closing any other way. Given that the editor has openly stated that the article is satire, we can't trust any of this to be true and it'd take a lot of work to verify the content - assuming that any of it is usable. I'm extremely disappointed in both the student and the editor, since this is not how you're supposed to use Wikipedia as an educational assignment. All I can hope is that the teacher does see this and will refrain from letting their students to vandalize Wikipedia as part of an educational assignment. On the talk page the student claimed that the teacher didn't specifically ask for this, but at some level the teacher had to have been asking for some sort of vandalism for this to be a graded assignment. Fair warning to the student: if this happens again you run a very serious risk of getting blocked from editing, as purposeful vandalizing is not acceptable on Wikipedia, for a grade or otherwise.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Hayes

Maggie Hayes (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)

BLP that has been unsourced (bar an IMDB link) since 2006 and tagged as such for almost a year. Doesn't appear to have had any genuinely major roles. No significant independent coverage found. Michig (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 08:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 08:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. I found evidence she was in Game of Thrones in a small role, but there isn't much in-depth coverage to suggest
notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sajad Zabol FSC

Sajad Zabol FSC (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 futsal club. Has played only in 3rd tier of the Iranian futsal league system. XXN, 17:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no independent reliable sources to show subject's notability. The only source mentioned in the article is a post in a forum. Dalba 09:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this convinces independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foolad Mahan Novin FSC

Foolad Mahan Novin FSC (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 futsal club. Has played only in 2nd and 3rd tiers of the Iranian futsal league system. XXN, 17:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable source to show subject's notability. Actually I cannot even access the official website at http://www.fooladmahansports.com/ (Returns "server not found" error). Dalba 09:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this convinces independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Samonov

Alexander Samonov (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another of the hundreds of NN hockey bio articles thrown up by Dolovis in defiance of the NHOCKEY criteria, all in search of some mythical article creation Game High Score. This one is a perfect example of Dolovis' serial bad faith. While no sources are presented discussing the subject at all, at any length, someone who superficially glanced at the article might say "Oh! He played in the KHL, so that's a prima facie pass on NHOCKEY as having played in a top-level league!" Look at the one source presented, though (a team stats list from the season in question), and it shows that while the subject may have been on the roster -- and only this one source claims as much -- he didn't see any match action.
It's long been the standard at NSPORTS (and something of which a sports article creator of Dolovis' longevity and edit count is well aware) that simply being on a roster confers no notability; one must play in a regular season or playoff match in order to get that. A casual glance -- as well as checking against the EuroHockey and hockeydb.com sites -- verifies that the subject never has played top-flight hockey. Unfortunately, this is a common stunt of the creator's of the "I'm betting no one checks the source" variety, which is why he's under a community ban from article creation. Ravenswing 18:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has not yet played at a high enough level for an article to exist about him. A search on him reveals nothing that would give a
WP:GNG pass. Deadman137 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as questionable for his own independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Nastasiuk

Zach Nastasiuk (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this player meets the GNG; sources are a mix of blogposts, team websites and routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Another of the hundreds of NN hockey bio articles thrown up by the creator in defiance of the NHOCKEY criteria, and for which he's been under sanction regarding new article creation for many months, all in search of some mythical article creation Game High Score. Ravenswing 17:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 40 combined regular season and playoff games in the AHL to this point and no coverage exists about him that isn't routine in nature. Deadman137 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he's questionable for the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Clapton

Marty Clapton (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Mid-minors player without distinction, fails NHOCKEY. Another of the hundreds of NN hockey bio articles thrown up by the creator in defiance of the NHOCKEY criteria, and for which he's been under sanction regarding new article creation for many months, all in search of some mythical article creation Game High Score. The subject is discussed at length in the book cited in the article, but that's the only source which meets the GNG that's out there, and the GNG requires that the subject be discussed in "significant detail" in multiple reliable sources. Ravenswing 18:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Career minor leaguer, I could find no evidence that he can pass
WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as none of this suggests independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Skinner

Richard L. Skinner (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 bureaucrat. Government posts that don't have inherent notability. Isn't elected, so
WP:NPOL doesn't apply. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quick search doesn't find any reliable secondary sources discussing Mr. Skinner or his career; doesn't seem like there's any way to write a biography here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable for his own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament

Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament (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:TOOSOON. An event that is over years away. The article is unreferenced. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There isn't even a stand-alone article for the 2016 Men's and Women's tournaments, and the only thing known about 2020 is that the Games will be in Japan. This is far
WP:CRYSTALBALL hasn't been made yet. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - This is a
is coming 23:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as not yet any content for an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Mathieu

Casa Mathieu (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:NOTFILM. Prod removed by author. reddogsix (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete - This is just absurd. Really. I mean look at the previous edits. Has this as the movie poster. Not sure how to link this correctly. File:Casa_Mathieu.jpg. Uploaded by the same author. --TheDomain (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THIS WAY. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

type:(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)

Delete for failing
WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. I can find nothing to show that this film is notable or even that it really exists beyond this Wikipedia article.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as barely anything for a better acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Keep as this is enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Walsh

Sally Walsh (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 Ethanlu121 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sally Walsh was a notable person. She is credited with ushering in modern architecture in Houston and was inducted into the Interior Design Hall of Fame. Mankad (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems to be notable. Her papers are collected at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, which says "Houstonian Sally Walsh was a nationally known interior designer, honored for both interior design as well as furniture design." That's good enough for me. The article could certainly use some work, but not deletion. ubiquity (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: she is a notable interior designer and well known and widely published. I recommend that a list of her key works be added to this page. DStrassmann (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sally Walsh is a member of the Interior Design Hall of Fame; her work is held by the Museum of Fine Arts Houston. This entry was created and edited during a Art + Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon held at the Menil Collection in Houston, TX. Lspiro (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a bad lead section (seriously, put a dob/dod at the start if you can!) was making the article look worse than it is. I've tried to fix the article and she does look quite clearly notable now. Blythwood (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kudos to Blythwood for excellent improvements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Speedy delete was an option. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rodríguez Villegas

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

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

This Biography does not meet
WP:G11, but I open this debate since the article has been around since June 2015 and more than one editor has made contributions and as a request by Rosymonterrey following up a debate in the Spanish admin noticeboard (see here). Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Spam cross wiki. It is a serious case of self-promotion and reiterative creation of hoaxes in many Wikipedias, see. In the case of this article in particular, it is the biography of the same user who edits it. As someone said in another similar matter: "Blatantly non-notable. Actually, I'd advocate for a speedy delete, because I don't see even a credible claim of significance".--Rosymonterrey (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect as this is enough (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JAI (programming language)

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

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

This subject may be notable someday, but the language hasen't even finished undergoing development. Ethanlu121 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete "work in progress" says it all here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jonathan Blow#Other work where it is mentioned and sourced. That this language is being worked on is verifiable, but without a spec or implementation, there isn't much coverage beyond that. Worth a mention at the creator's article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mark viking and add an entry at the Jai DAB page. Tigraan (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mark viking. SJK (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Litchfield Jazz Camp

Litchfield Jazz Camp (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 since 2007 when it was created by User:Litchfield Jazz, which appears to be a single-purpose promotional account. No secondary sources attesting to notability. Gamaliel (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very much seems like advertisement.
talk) 17:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as searches found a few links so far at Books, News and Highbeam but this is still questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Arthur Lawrence

Sir Arthur Lawrence (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 RS source Greek Legend (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to have written a single book, not clear even that is particularly notable. No independent secondary
WP:RS that I can find. JMWt (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I tried to improve it as best as was possible, but almost no secondary sources exist on his life. Jokrez (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionably better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this seems convincingly clear enough (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Thane stabbing

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/2016 Thane stabbing

Articles for deletion/2016 Thane stabbing (2nd nomination)

2016 Thane stabbing (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)

Wikipedia is not news. Everyday there are a few crime related news that gets media coverage and then forgotten in India. Greek Legend (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment There are many crime cases which are remembered years after but they don't have any Wikipedia articles as "2004 Siwan double murder" (two young men were drenched in acid and killed by a criminal politician). "1984 Vinod Mehta murder" ( a senior cop stabbed to death with his eyes gouged out in 1984 by criminals). I didn't know anything about previous nomination. In the previous nomination the nominator mentioned about historical significance of a crime related news, public the protests against the crime. Those who vote keep are only looking at the number. There was no public protest as he killed his own family of 14. Till today this is still a breaking news. It's not like those American cases where someone enters a school and stabs random kids, or random people. I know more about Indian crime and Indian news. International coverage is not enough. Greek Legend (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was relatively clear consensus to keep four days ago, and I don't think anything's changed since then. /wiae /tlk 14:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't just some person stabbing someone else, the person murdered 14 people.
talk) 16:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep and snow close discussion per above; (starting a new nomination just a few days after 1st is completely pointless) That's an important event with big international coverage, so shoudn't be deleted. The Guardian BBC AlJazeera Telegraph Russia Today CNN El Mundo UOL Brazil I mean this type of event is not a routine in India or other Asian country like shootings in US, with many articles per year - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not routine, that needs to be made clear in the article, as well as any other "enduring historical significance" that this has. Each event should be judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: are we seriously going to be relisting this page for discussion every few days? Surely that's not normal practice, is it? JMWt (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a case of mass stabbing. This is about a psycho killing his own family members. The family was large-that's the reason of 14 deaths. If the family would have been three members then it would look natural. This is not about deleting non-American articles. The news remained headlines for few hours and then dropped by Indian media. I didn't see it as headlines or as top ten news from next day. This is a breaking news. American, European families are generally small. So, this is getting wrong importance. Greek Legend (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous discussion, which was closed without comment and seemingly not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and policies like
WP:NEVENT; this event does not yet have "enduring historical significance". I'm also not entirely sure this actually had "massive coverage" as claimed(news services share stories) , and even if it did, Wikipedia does not parrot the press. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per community consensus. Biwom (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of reliable sourcing. BabbaQ (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already kept very recently. You can't carry on nominating something until you get the result you want. We already have clear consensus to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Air Defence Areas

Australian Air Defence Areas (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)

Redundant and poorly sourced. The commands in this stub are fully covered by the more detailed and accurately framed
reliable source. Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Support deletion --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly redundant to
boldly redirected instead of bringing to AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Considered that but as the term was not officially used (to my knowledge) I figured best to remove entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough I suppose. Prior to this AfD the article had only seen 38 views in the last 90 days, so it's obviously not a very searched for term. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant article. Covered by RAAF area commands. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. (Thanks. Missed the other article when I deorphaned. But the deorphaning has worked exactly as it should; brought the article to the wikicommunity's attention!) Eno Lirpa (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, tks for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that Australia has ever had "air defence areas", and ozatwar is very unreliable. Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, the article seems to have been created a while ago before we had a more comprehensive parent article. Since this is now well covered at RAAF area commands it seems redundant. Given the issues with terminology deletion seems more appropriate than a redirect. Anotherclown (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as discussed above, the article was created prior to the more comprehensive articles created and expanded by the knowledgeable Ian Rose. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete as no context for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Jet

Johnny Jet (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 blogger, advertisement. Bobak (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agree on both counts, though I note it's only notability that's grounds for deletion. AdventurousMe (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:58, 26 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 18:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this guy is actually notable enough to be on Wikipedia. He appears on radio shows, and in over 3,000 publications. CLCStudent (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there's not a large amount of solidity to this as none of it suggests solidly satisfying the applicable notability or otherwise anything else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft and Userfy if needed as searches found expected mentions but nothing else solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
My closure of this discussion was queried so I am relisting for further comments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly to call this person is "blogger" is factually incorrect when in fact he's a very in-demand travel writer, most notably with the surmountable problem. --Oakshade (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete having a regular blog on Huffington Post is not evidence of notability, as none of those posts are helpful in creating an article about Jet. I can see he occasionally gives quotes to news media about travel topics, but I cannot locate any in depth coverage of Jet himself (being quoted is not helpful to establish notability or write a WP page about him). On this basis, I don't think he meets the
WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. All I see are this guy's own site, facebook, twitter, instagram, pintrest, etc. He knows how to work the social networks, but that doesn't meet our standards. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You'll find that the published internet searchable sources do not well document this individual's notability (Although he does have some 84k twitter and 36k facebook followers). However, it appears he has had wide-spread exposure on television, and other means; especially under his birth name: John Einar DiScala. Aeonx (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Social media presence does not equate notability. Significant coverage of the topic is required.
flyer 07:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelious Drane

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Cornelious Drane

Articles for deletion/Cornelious Drane (2nd nomination)

Cornelious Drane (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 with the first AfD closed for spurious reasons. Fails
WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another
WP:GNG. Also there is no coverage to verify unsourced Golden Globes championship claim. X4n6 (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NBOX and lacks the significant coverage required by GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable; fails
WP:NBOX. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NBOX. --Donniediamond (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as the first AfD can't be considered and none of this suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sana Ullah Khan Masti Khel

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 referenced properly

GreenCricket (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose: It is definitely referenced properly, i see there is a reference there but i accept that article requires improvement which can be done but the reason provided for deletion is not valid. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added more refs, more can be added if needed but i think these should be good enough to decline this deletion request. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The individual fulfills the requirement of
WP:NOTABILITY.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 20:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per
WP:NPOL as having held national political office. AusLondonder (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep, as per AusLondoner. Further, I urge nominator -- please don't participate in the deletion fora until you become familiar with our deletion policies and procedures. Geo Swan (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this seems clear to close for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Architectonic

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

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

Redirect to
Architectural already redirects to Architecture. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as useful. I don't think users landing on this page are likely to be looking for Architecture. A better reason for deleting it would be the fact that it's a list of dictionary definitions. Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect using
WP:DICTIONARY. I'm not sure architecture is the primary topic for this; I've mostly come across the term in the context of Kantian philosophy and many of the Google results it turns up are related to that or other "architectonic" forms of philosophy. Unless and until someone creates an architectonic philosophy article or similar, though, it makes most sense to just redirect this to Wiktionary. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Struck and changing to keep per
Kantian architectonics, which is already a (perfectly justified) redirect. With C. S. Peirce as well—he also comes up on the first page of Google results for the term—I think there's enough material for this to be a dab and not just a Wiktionary redirect, though I'm still iffy about the other two definitions the page offers. —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I've just revised the page. It now has a distinct and relevant bluelink on each line. Peirce's architectonic is also a notable concept that could sustain its own article, but for now is mentioned in the article about him. Architecture, structure, Kant, and Peirce justify a disambiguation. @Nizolan and Finnusertop: does this change your opinion? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rhododendrites' reasoning and page improvements. This looks like a reasonable DAB page now, with verifiable topics. --Mark viking (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Please add these considerations to the others on the "keep" side. The
Center for Functional Engineered Nano Architectonics - which suggests that the term is also in use in computer architecture, and has been for many years in the discussion of major forms such as Von Neuman versus parallel designs. See "Computer Architectonics" [15]. —Blanchette (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milk (English band)

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

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

Wikimedia received a comment from a member of this band ticket: 2016031810008727 noting deficiencies in the article. I notice from the editing history that it has almost nothing other than minor maintenance in the last six years. I suggest that someone either needs to completely overhaul this or we should just remove it. In its present condition, it is not just limited information, but literally worse than nothing. S Philbrick (Talk) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe the sources exist that would allow this to be improved, and as it stands there is little claim of notability. --Michig (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing anything that looks particularly like a
WP:RS giving notability. JMWt (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as simply none of this suggests a better acceptable article, certainly questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm totally discounting the unsigned comments from IP editors with no history. The comment by Aeonx, while ostensibly arguing to keep, is really giving reasons which support deletion.
So, that leaves us with Justlettersandnumbers and SwisterTwister making cogent arguments to delete, and Atlantic306 making a good argument to keep. I find Altantic's argument that, The New York Times and London Evening Standard articles are enough, to be compelling. But not compelling enough to make me go against the weight of numbers and call this a straight keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Gagliardi

Roberto Gagliardi (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)

Despite all the the
WP:COI
puffery, this person apparently is not notable enough to have an article here. There's one good in-depth source in the page, a New York Times article; the rest seem to be connected sources, either obviously or less obviously so.
There are many people called Roberto Gagliardi: the name gets 7 hits on Highbeam, six for an American railwayman, one for a British footballer; Google news is dominated by a young politician from southern Italy, and a search for " 'roberto gagliardi' gallery " gets no relevant hit. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more links to Roberto Gagliardi that can help not delete his wikipedia page for lack of notability and can be added to his references:

http://artmag.saatchigallery.com/ciao-chianciano/

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/warhol-drawings-help-raise-11000-for-polio-charity-8468630.html

http://archivio.lastampa.it/m/articolo?id=5a110faf8411db17667cfa8d4851c9e84f085c23

<link redacted per
WP:LINKVIO> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.27.130 (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Gagliardi may be low profile but definitely notable in the art world http://www.museodarte.org/en/2015project http://www.gagliardigallery.org/roberto-gagliardi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.55.108 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — 217.43.55.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is well supplied with sources; however, many of them appear to be closely connected with Gagliardi. These include:

museodarte.org: website of Gagliardi's art museum in Chianciano Terme

www.casagagliardi.org: registered to Peter Gagliardi, 509 King's Road, London

europeanartcritics.org: apparently identical to international-confederation-art-critics.org, contact address 509 King's Road, London, headquarters Art Museum of Chianciano, 280 Viale della Libertà, Chianciano Terme; both are hosted by The Bunker Secure Hosting Ltd, Newbury, Berkshire

artnewsreport.com: no editorial team or contact address; many pages associated with the museum in Chianciano Terme, for example this; site is hosted by The Bunker Secure Hosting Ltd, Newbury, Berkshire

artpress24.com: no editorial team or contact address; many pages associated with the Gagliardi gallery in London or the museum in Chianciano Terme; site is hosted by The Bunker Secure Hosting Ltd, Newbury, Berkshire

www.londonbiennale.co.uk: registered to Peter Gagliardi, 509 King's Road, London; hosted by The Bunker Secure Hosting Ltd, Newbury, Berkshire

artworldtalk.net: no editorial team or contact address; apparently closely connected to Gagliardi; hosted by The Bunker Secure Hosting Ltd, Newbury, Berkshire

gagliardigallery.org: website of Gagliardi's gallery at 509 King's Road, London; registered to Peter Gagliardi at that address; hosted by The Bunker Secure Hosting Ltd, Newbury, Berkshire

Once those have been removed there will be two reliable and two unverifiable references in the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If he founded a private museum, art space or exhibition, albeit an important one like the London Art Biennale, it is only normal that the website of the actual institution is somewhat connected with his name and this does not damage the integrity of the source.

Other third party sources sources listed below include the Saatchi Gallery Magazine, London's Evening Standard, the New York Times and the official Chianciano Terme Council website:

http://artmag.saatchigallery.com/ciao-chianciano/

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/warhol-drawings-help-raise-11000-for-polio-charity-8468630.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/travel/13headsup.html?_r=0

http://www.comune.chianciano-terme.siena.it/on-line/Home/Offertaculturale/MuseodArteContemporanea.html

http://www.nannimagazine.it/stampa_articolo.php?idNews=2922

http://www.valdichianaoggi.it/notizie/chianciano-i-vincitori-della-biennale-d-arte-contemporanea-2011-7104906.html?print=1&tmpl=component

http://www.oksiena.it/la-biennale-darte-di-chianciano-chiude-i-battenti-appuntamento-al-2013-9328.html

http://www.comune.chianciano-terme.siena.it/on-line/Home/Offertaculturale/MuseodArteContemporanea.html

http://www.comune.chianciano-terme.siena.it/on-line/Home/Comunicazione/ComunicatiStampa/2013/articolo1512255.html

http://www.rotary-ribi.org/districts/page.php?PgID=345541&DistrictNo=1090

http://www.artslant.com/global/artists/show/218722-roberto-gagliardi

http://www.artlyst.com/member-articles/snap-shots-of-the-biennale-of-chianciano-2013

http://www.effettoarte.com/biennale-di-chianciano-2013/

http://ekstramens.ru/watch/s0jcwPJVxss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.39.242 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all of this is clearly questionable for WP:CREATIVE, nothing else convincing regardless of the number of votes and comments at this AfD. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Most references are in passing and claim of notability is weak at best. However, there are a lot of hits so he may be meet the guideline. I'm inclined to keep this article but tag for Notability at this stage. Aeonx (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there seems to be enough reliable sources identified such as The New York Times article, London Evening Standard and many specialist art sources so that
WP:BASIC is passed IMHO. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. The text in ALL CAPS SHOUTING has been ignored. Sandstein 10:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South West India

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

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

This unsourced article contradicts the fully-developed and sourced articles Western India and South India. ubiquity (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't seem to add anything beyond the other pages mentioned.JMWt (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE WAS DEVELOPED FROM WESTERN INDIAN STATES. BUT I HAVE TOOK AWAY THE DETAILS OF THE STATES OF WESTERN INDIA. ONLY KERALA, KARNATAKA, LAKSHADWEEP ISL, PARTS OF TAMILNADU ARE SOUTH WEST. NOW IT IS CLEARLY SOURCED ONLY ABOUT THE SOUTH WEST INDIA. THIS IS ALSO NOT A SMALL ARTICLE. THERE ARE ARTCLES WHICH ARE SINGLE LINED WHICH ARE NOT DELETED. THIS ARTICLE IS REFERENCED, HAS 6 SUB DIVISIONS, MORE THAN 12 LINKS AND WRITTEN IN A GOOD GRAMMAR.PLEASE REVIEW IT AND TAKE THE DELETION TAG OFF, BEFORE SOMEONE CLEANSUP THE ARTICLE.THIS IS THE LONGEST ARTICLE MADE BY ME IN MY 500 EDITS. --wiki tamil 100 04:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
talk • contribs
)
according to the latest edit, i have made a huge edit in the
talk • contribs
)

Comment: The above are not policy arguments for keep. We'd need reliable sources to show that the term is used and notable enough to have a page as per the
WP:RS. The author asserting things does not count for very much in a AfD discussion. JMWt (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. We already have
Malabar region to Kerala + parts of Tamil Nadu. Much of the information in this article is copy-pasted from other articles such as History of Goa, History of Karnataka and History of Kerala. utcursch | talk 15:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

wikipedian has the right of copy editing user: utcursch. read about wiki well. i have seen more than 5 articles which are mostly copy edited. in article coastal south west india the info is only about coastal area.user: utcursch do you know anything about india, the north region, the south, the east or the west parts of india. south west india refers the states of india in the direction of south west. read the article well.i knew that you re a indian in canada , but i can't think how can you forget the directions and states of our country in the directions. sorry if i had written anything harsh. --wiki tamil 100 18:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
talk • contribs
)

Delete at best as anything considering how it may be acceptable, this would need to be deleted and restarted at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Love

Invisible Love (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)

Nominating on behalf of
WP:NSONGS . Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The following pages are also being nominated:

DJ Ritendra

Abyss of Me

As I Am (DJ Ritendra song)

Tonight (DJ Ritendra song)

Ballin (DJ Ritendra song)

Now That You're Gone (DJ Ritendra album)

Lewavesi Production

Hopefully that all of them; Greek Legend, let me know if I missed any. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another one - DJ Ritendra discography. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These articles do not meet
RS blogs and press releases. The Fiji Times references do not indicate notability either -- just press-release like event announcements of local importance. utcursch | talk 12:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the artist page and delete the rest, The Jet Newspaper is a reliable source, you can check here on page 8. Fijimusic talk 02:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) — Fijimusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete all per Utcursch. Lacking in reliable sources, no new ones found. --Finngall ^talk 16:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for independent notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Guy

Alistair Guy (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)

His pictures are published in websites. The articles don't mention him. Greek Legend (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources are affiliated with the subject, fails
talk) 05:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails
WP:CREATIVE, but some references are not affiliated with him and mention him as notable fashion photographer. But there is nothing comprehensive available, so I tend to Weak Delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete at best for now as my searches also found nothing enhancing better sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serverpars

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

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

Not notable. Greek Legend (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per
WP:GNG is not met and my vote is delete. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I thought Primary source is more important than secondary source. Primary source means their own website? Greek Legend (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 05:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing for better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied G4 (recreation of previously deleted content). Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alen simonyan

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

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

Only one independent source. Greek Legend (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is written like a
WP:GNG has not been passed either. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and/or sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Seems this could be the same guy Alen Simonyan. Greek Legend (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I just checked the deleted edits and it is indeed the same person — in fact, it's full-on the same text. Thanks for the catch, I'm speedying this as a recreation of deleted content accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Oviedo

Alberto Oviedo (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)

His pictures are published in websites, but no RS source mentions about him. Greek Legend (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No evidence for passing
WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as questionably solid for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aayush Rimal

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

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

Not notable Greek Legend (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a promotional article. It looks like it was written by the subject himself. --TheDomain (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus on deletion, but everybody agrees this article needs editorial improvement. The sources pointed out in the AfD should be added to the article.
There is also some discussion about whether the title should reflect the name of the murderer or the victim. That is out of scope for AfD, and the discussion should be continued on the article talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison W. Noel

Harrison W. Noel (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)

Nothing notable about this person. There are tons of murderers in the world and not every one of them are notable. Fails
WP:BIO Tinton5 (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
talk) 06:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete (or Merge/Redirect). Does not meet
WP:BIO1E redirection to Kidnapping in the United States provided the case is incorporated there. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources meet and surpass the notability standard. Not only did the incident receive widespread coverage at the time it occurred and for many years thereafter, the book coverage was 70 years later. That's as sustained as you can get. The article would benefit from expansion with the ample available sources. Alansohn (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand the stub the very definition of sustained coverage. No bias against renaming for the murder as opposed the murderer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep AfD is not an article improvement process; editing is. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

but how does it meet notability? LibStar (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the two refs on the article, sources are available like here, here, and here. Notability is more than established. Whether the article should be on the murderer or the murder can be determined outside AfD process. 103.6.159.71 (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not sure why the links are showing up malformed, can someone help? 103.6.159.71 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't like the quotation marks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

DELETE fails WP:PERP. it's a run of the mill murder. Nothing particularly unique about the victim or the crime. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as this is still questionably improvable and better, nothing else suggesting convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - per sources. per GNGs criteria if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. AfD should not be used on "small articles" or articles that are unlikely to be expanded beyond a stub or similar. But here I actually see potential for a expansion even though that is not a criteria for deletion. BabbaQ (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bear versus bull

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

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

This is totally original research. No sources discuss both actual bears and actual bulls together, except briefly, in passing. Though the article is pretty coy and doesn't actually say it, it's not about bulls or bears, but the stock market. There's already an article about stock market bulls and bears
Market trends, but even that is pretty iffy. The situation is analogous to having an article entitled "Pluto versus Uranus" with some text just about the former planet Pluto, some text just about Uranus, but the main topics being about a comic book character and your rectum. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 03:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

This is a Biological topic, with sources

What I created is the Biological topic of the bear versus the bull, for which there are sources, not necessarily the Economical concept of the bear versus the bull, similar to that of "Tiger versus lion," so kindly do not delete it.

For example, these sources ^[1]^[2] show that bears may kill cattle or Bovini-bovinae for food, therefore, come into confrontation with bulls (in this sense, male cattle or Bovini-bovinae).

Leo1pard (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
transclude correctly to the main AFD page when using sections. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Some bull facts in parallel with some bear facts.
WP:BUTITSTRUE to Leopard1's argument. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I looked at the sources and they didn't seem to be about bear vs bull. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: hard to see what the page is for. Bear and Bull markets in economics are a thing, but why would we need a page comparing bull and a bear? I don't understand. I guess it is similar to Apples and oranges, but there the emphasis is on the derivation of the phrase and sources that have compared them. I can't see that we can have pages that actually compare items in common phrases because that'd be silly. JMWt (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good analogy. Yes it would resemble someone then creating an article that compared these two fruits on the basis of their nutrients, as if that were somehow a coherent thing to be explored.
talk) 18:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Which is obviously not the case, if you look at the references now. Leo1pard (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References for "Bear versus bull"

^[3] ^[2] ^[4]
Leo1pard (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a completely useless juxtaposition of two animals, trying to synthesize... something. It isn't gibberish but as a concept for an article, it's of no practical use to anyone, from what I can see, other than perhaps the author. It's obviously inspired by his more successful
talk) 17:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

See also his related
talk) 18:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The success of the article
Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla may have inspired me, but Bear versus bull is inspired more by the (lengthy) article Tiger versus lion, than by Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla, which itself was inspired by the former. Leo1pard (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Reference of a fight between a bear and a bull

[5]Leo1pard (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like an unneeded intersection: why not Ostrich vs. Emu or Llama vs. Goat? I'm also concerned that the sources seem to talk about bulls or bears and this article is a synthesis. If these two animals were often confused with each other, than an article running through the different taxonomy would be fine. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of records of fights between bears and bulls

^[6]: Leo1pard (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is quite mistaken. Bull/bear fights were a popular spectator sport in California and there are numerous sources which document this in detail. For example, see Bear-and-Bull Fights. The topic therefore passes the
WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't follow your reasoning; bear and bull fights existed therefore it is reasonable to have a page comparing relatively random features of those two animals? Are you saying that
WP:TNT and started over to reflect those things rather than trying to compare physical features. JMWt (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
If that's the case, Andrew, then it seems to me then
talk) 12:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Would you say something similar to the author of Tiger versus lion? Leo1pard (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the article that's been tagged as in need of attention since 2014? Yes I probably would say something similar to that distinguished author, whoever he might be.
talk) 14:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I restructured it. Leo1pard (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please take a look at the articles in the Category:Blood sports tree. I think those might offer a better format for covering animal fighting in California rather than the Animal 1 vs. Animal 2 model. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But would you say that for the article Tiger versus lion, which is also more than about organized fights between the mentioned animals? Leo1pard (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned,
WP:TNT it. JMWt (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Very well, I started something. Leo1pard (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Absolutely in agreement with JMWt here and Shawn's comment above. If kept, the article should be moved to
Bear and bull fights (with a redirect from the converse), with material not directly related to bear and bull fights removed and not re-added (nb: There also appears to be Roman-era bear-bull baiting). If predation of cattle by bears happened to be significant enough, then that would belong under one or more bear articles. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Would you say something similar for Tiger versus lion, since it is also more than about fights between mentioned animals? Leo1pard (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. TvL is better structured, but could do with a significant prune and focussing (noting that it was far cleaner, though apparently a magnet for edit warring, in earlier revisions). Such paragraphs as "In Afghanistan, it is possible that lions occurred at least in the southwest and southern parts.[7] Tigers bred at the upper reaches of the Hari Rud or Tedzhen Darya at Herat.[29][7] Tigers were found at a tributary of the Amu Darya called the ‘Pyandzh River’, from where they would invade what is now Tajikistan, and the Geri, Kunduz and Murghab Rivers.[7]" I'd consider
WP:COATRACK
-- they don't intersect the topic of tigers and lions. Similarly, the page and a half of physiology (expanded from a couple of paragraphs in earlier versions) should be in species articles.

In a
Bear and bull fights
article, one way of structuring things might be along the lines of:

* Lede - brief summation of the article focussed on Bear vs bull fights. The current lede is in no way so focussed. Sample from the top of my head -- definitely wildly accurate:
"Bear-and-bull fights were a blood sport, normally held between a single bear and one domestic bull. They originated in Rome in 24 AD, and ran until 347 AD when they were ceased by an edict by the Emperor Anonimus. Bear-and-bull fights resumed in modern times in Mexico in the late 18th century, first appearing in the Plaza del Toros in Juarez, and spreading regionally from there. They were imported to California no later than 1849, when an exhibition match was held in...")

* History (Rome-> Mexico -> California -> anywhere more modern->last recorded fight) - specific attested bear-vs-bull tactics could go here against locational reports or in its own section, depending on what reads most cleanly.

* In nature (selected attested examples only of direct bear and bull/cattle fights - not supposition about what could have occured and that cattle and bears may have been in the same region)

* In literature and art (attested examples only dealing with bull vs bear)

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I started restructuring it again. Leo1pard (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per violation of
WP:FRINGE, since I doubt that instances of bears fighting bulls are broadly supported by any sort of reputable scholarship. As has been stated above, this article is useless. Anyone who wants to compare bears and bulls can look at the separate articles and do so on their own time. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Incorrect, the book on the popularity of the topic, which I mentioned, does not have to be accessed only on Amazon.com, if you check the details of the reference which I put down in the article. Leo1pard (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I went on Google Books and found the information. I must apologize for jumping to conclusions. But two things: first of all, when you reference a book and provide a link, you should make sure that the link provides the information you've cited, not just the name of the book or the fact that the book exists. And secondly: this article still contains quite a bit of irrelevant information. If the verification for the continued existence of this article is that bear-bull fights took place historically, this should be the main point of the article, as this is the only case where "bear vs. bull" appears to be notable. However, in my opinion, this topic still fails general notability, even in the historical sense, as the only place where the issue is discussed is in one highly specialized source (a concise history of one subspecies of brown bear). If you can back up your claims of notability with multiple recent third-party sources (not just sources discussing bears and bulls separately, but discussing them in this context), then
WP:GNG will be met. Additionally, it's nonsense to consider a bull to be "any male member of the subfamily bovinae"; for example, is this a bull? (It is a member of the subfamily bovinae.) The term "bull" is used to describe the males of many species, including such varied creatures as whales, but not all "bulls" are bulls. In conclusion, unless this article receives major changes and a large number of reliable sources, I'm afraid it's still "delete" material in my opinion. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 18:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I have reformatted the article to talk about Bovini-bovinae that are domesticated, or can be so, to make things simpler. Leo1pard (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More had been added. Leo1pard (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Wilhelm Klink: it is true that one of the references is incorrectly formatted, but it is wrong to say that the link must provide the information cited. There are plenty of references in use on wikipedia which are not fully available and open so the information is not accessible by clicking on a link. These can still be used as reliable sources. JMWt (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the link to remove an unnecessary link to Amazon. But it is still a delete for me. JMWt (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt: I understand; I was merely pointing out to Leo1pard that the use of clearer citations would make it easier for every editor looking to verify information. In this case, the information was fully available via Google Books; sending the reference there would have been more logical than sending it to Amazon. In any case, I apologize for any misconduct on my part. On a side note: this exchange has nothing to do with this deletion discussion; the next time you have any concerns, please notify me on my talk page. Regards, Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more. Leo1pard (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

doi:10.1644/1545-1410(2001)647<0001:UA>2.0.CO;2
. Retrieved 2016-03-09.

^ ^a ^b "Mammalian Species - Ursus arctos" (PDF). American Society of Mammalogists, Smith College. 1993-04-23. Retrieved 2016-02-21. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

^ Gomez, W.; Patterson, T. A.; Swinton, J.; Berini, J. (2011). "Bovidae: antelopes, cattle, gazelles, goats, sheep, and relatives". Animal Diversity Web. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Retrieved 2016-02-25.

ISBN 978-1-897425-09-1
. Retrieved 2016-03-18.

^ Wyman T (2002). "Grizzly bear predation on a bull bison in Yellowstone National Park" (PDF). Ursus. 13: 375. Retrieved 2016-03-18.

ISBN 0520205200
. Retrieved 2016-03-19.

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn . Fenix down (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad Gazibegović

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Fuad Gazibegović

Articles for deletion/Fuad Gazibegovič

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

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

Delete: as athlete of insufficient or questionable notability. Quis separabit? 03:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He played in the Slovenian PrvaLiga, a
WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets
WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Passes
fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I fail to see why
WP:FPL. Perhaps they can expand on what was wrong with the previous AFD? Nfitz (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@Nfitz -- we all make mistakes. Obviously, if he has had two AFDs then his notability is not apparent to many of us. In any case, I withdraw the nomination. Quis separabit? 16:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rights Lab

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

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

Article about a web series, which makes no strong claim of notability per
reliable source coverage. As always, Wikipedia is not a public relations directory on which all web series automatically get to have articles -- real media coverage, supporting a real claim of notability (which is not the same thing as existence) must be present. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 01:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 10:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 10:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon at best, none of this suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. Draft and Userfy only if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, but definitely a fascinating topic. I think this has promise in the future, just not now.
talk) 05:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kehr

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Alex Kehr

Articles for deletion/Alex Kehr (2nd nomination)

Alex Kehr (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. Only indication of notability I see is almost making the Forbes 30 Under 30 list, but he didn't make the list, and the only reference I can find for him almost making it is his own tweets (not a
reliable source). His FindKatrina website got a little coverage, not enough to indicate notability. Having a "top-selling" book doesn't actually mean anything (Here's an article by a guy who got an Amazon "#1 Bestseller" by selling three copies of a photo of his foot.). And his company Wander doesn't have any coverage or indication of notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
We will update the article further to even better meet the Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFancyBro (talk • contribs) 02:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
notability guidelines. You're welcome to try to find more evidence of notability though. -IagoQnsi (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

OK- we will update accordingly. We do know that the sales of the book were significantly higher than "3" like the article that you share. We will also update the article with additional notoriety points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFancyBro (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Guy (Help!) 08:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this advertorial. The subject comprehensively fails both the
WP:Author. The book is self-published. It has not been reviewed in any independent publications as far as I can see. Amazon sales rankings are notoriously unreliable, as are the "customer reviews". Required reading: "Amazon sues 1,000 'fake reviewers' ", The Guardian and "How to fake a bestseller", The Times. It would need to be on something like the New York Times Bestseller List and/or to have been the subject of multiple reviews in real publications to even have a remote chance of being considered notable. I can find no coverage of the subject himself, apart from brief mentions (10 years ago, when he was presumably 14) in a couple of articles on the use of websites to find people missing in Hurricane Katrina, of which his was one of many. His company is 4 months old and has zero coverage. Incidentally, I have removed the article's external link to the book's page on Amazon. Voceditenore (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as being an attempt to
^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as simply none of this suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not a lot of discussion here, but the only person arguing to keep failed to provide specific examples of RS which support notability or any other policy-based reasoning. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Souls Brass Band

Forgotten Souls Brass Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of meeting
WP:BAND. —swpb^T 14:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They have several mentions in books on Google Books and also in about 5 to 8 articles on ProQuest, but none of the coverage goes beyond a mention that they are playing somewhere or one short paragraph on them, except for one interview with a band member about their many years appearing at the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Fest. According to one of the ProQuest sources, this is an "all star ensemble" that plays only one or two gigs a year and the members seem to all either be in other bands or have other jobs the rest of the time. May merit a mention in the "Performers" section of the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival article due to the number of years they've reportedly been appearing at it, but the sources don't seem sufficient to support a whole article on the band. TheBlinkster (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are enough RS to support a small article, the band has notable members and a 15 year historyAtlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches simply found nothing better than a few links. Atlantic305's comment is not clarifying how this article can actually be improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Romaniello

John Romaniello (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)

Highly promotional article on borderline notable author, with an absurdly unreliable list of references. As I suspected, checking the actual NYTimes bestseller list shows it was on the subsidiary list for Advice and How-To: (Sunday, May 05th 2013), which does not show notability . . Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for advertising, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as my searches simply found a few links which were expected and nothing of convincing improvements which can also be said for this article. The article is still questionable overall despite the number of sources. SwisterTwister talk 01:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet
reliable for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical Development Services Agency

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Clinical Development Services Agency

Articles for deletion/Clinical Development Services Agency (2nd nomination)

Clinical Development Services Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable, and worded promotionally. Routine government agency DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No credible rationale provided for deletion. What is a "routine" government agency? AusLondonder (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @
notability? If not, I may be inclined to a Merge with Department of Biotechnology, as well suggesting that Translational Health Science and Technology Institute should be merged there as well.FeatherPluma (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted above, the CDSA is an agency of THSTI which itself appears not to be notable. The only mentions of the CDSA that I can see are on job advert sites and brief mentions of Indian government sites. The CDSA site doesn't really talk about things it has done but rather sets out some intentions and aims. The organisation has been in existence for seven years but I can't find anything to indicate that it has achieved anything of note over this time. With the promotional wording removed there isn't much left to suggest notability and the lack of reliable coverage is a real problem. It doesn't have
WP:NONPROFIT. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete at best for now as this is simply questionable for solid notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Need a Miracle (Tara McDonald song)

I Need a Miracle (Tara McDonald song) (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. Fails
WP:NSONG JMHamo (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep or Merge to the original song article, if there is one, given that I did find that the cover charted in Belgium. editorEهեইдအ😎 09:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Toca's Miracle or Coco_Star#.22I_Need_A_Miracle.22_and_.22Toca.27s_Miracle.22. ~Kvng (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much an unattributed copy and paste from Coco Star. The disambiguator would be misleading. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: what "disambiguator" are you referring to? ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Tara McDonald song" – the song isn't a Tara McDonald song and the best redirect target is about the original version. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as with this current name, this is actually questionable for its own notable article and also then notable and acceptable for redirecting to the listed article above. If need be, this can be linked to the listed article above later. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are so many things wrong with this article. First of all the content is already in the Tara McDonald article. Second, none of the sources are about this version. Third, it isn't a Tara McDonald song, it's somebody else's song that was just recorded by Tara McDonald, so we should stop naming articles in such a retarded manner. It's not notable. If it reached number 27 on the Belgian Dance Chart (and how many sales does that feat take, I wonder) that may be worth a mention in the Tara McDonald article but it doesn't justify an article. This title would be useless as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
flyer 03:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Monster High: Great Scarrier Reef

Non notable tv special. Article does not cite any sources.
talk) 00:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 00:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These things just get pumped out with no coverage in reliable sources. At best, redirect to
Monster High (Web series)#Full-length movies. Others in this series deserve the same treatment. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nothing convincingly better for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
flyer 03:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Look Around (Bratz song)

Non notable song. Seems a lot like advertising to me.
talk) 00:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 00:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 13:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 13:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 13:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Author seems to have an obsession with Bratz, but not everything surrounding it needs an article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all Bratz song articles, such as this one, to
Top Kid Audio chart (also unfortunately). editorEهեইдအ😎 23:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect as certainly questionable at best but perhaps no serious needs for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this seems clear to close for now and any likely improvements are of course welcome. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tramlijn 5 (Amsterdam)

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

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

Why is this line
NOTABLE for ENWIKI? Most people who take this line don't use English, anyways. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very rare do I see
written in English." Is an actual rail transit line just like the N Judah,SEPTA Route 10, and Orange Line (San Diego Trolley). The Dutch WP article has plenty of coverage. It's impossible for such a system to exist without extensive proposal, planning, budgetary and environmental government and other reports. --Oakshade (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

In that case how come articles for other lines not exist in English yet? NLWIKI already has coverage of all 15 lines in Amsterdam, plus every single other tram line that has existed in the country. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles doesn't exist yet because no one has decided to make them yet. A lot of notable subjects doesn't have articles as of now and may never get any.
talk) 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The reason for the deletion nomination is clearly biased.
talk) 16:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep (and rename to
WP:ENGLISH). Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, including foreign-language sources, and there are plenty of news articles about the line. Try googling for "tram 5" amsterdam. By the way, it is not yer average tram line, considering that it partially shares tracks with a light rail/metro system and apparently is the most used tram line in Amsterdam (see the NL-wiki version, second ref). - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Irrelevant and daft deletion premise apparently based on not being in an English-speaking country. So what? It's also irrelevant that it's covered in another wiki or that we don't have other linked articles on this one yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Dorel

Vincent Dorel (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. Concern was No evidence this footballer meets
WP:GNG or has played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – author seems to have challenged PROD due to the belief that the French third tier is professional, however there is no evidence that it is fully professional, thus falling short of the
general notability guideline either. C 679 13:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or maybe userfy, fails
WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Allain

Bobby Allain (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:FPL. The creator also objected on the grounds that Allain is signed to a Ligue 2 club. This is not relevant since he has not played for Red Star since they were promoted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or maybe Userfy- fails
WP:NFOOTY soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as currently questionably better for notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to La Cañada Flintridge, California#Geography as all in all this is questionable for its own article and so may be best merged to the listed article (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Altacanyada, California

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

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

This is not an unicorporated area of LA county, it is merely a negihbourhood in La Canada. TJH2018 talk 00:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete This article only contains two sentences. 2602:306:3357:BA0:1C34:C732:DFBD:EFE2 (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See
WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to La Cañada Flintridge, California, in the absence of material to write a longer article. Neighborhoods of a larger city are plausible search terms. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partially merge into La Cañada Flintridge, California#Geography without prejudice against recreation with suitable sourcing. I was unable to find enough sources to even get the article out of stub status at this time. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 17:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_March_18&oldid=1142621780"~~

[Lariviere-1] :10.1644/1545-1410(2001)647<0001:UA>2.0.CO;2
. Retrieved 2016-03-09.

[Smith1993-2] "Mammalian Species - Ursus arctos" (PDF). American Society of Mammalogists, Smith College. 1993-04-23. Retrieved 2016-02-21. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[adw2011-3] Gomez, W.; Patterson, T. A.; Swinton, J.; Berini, J. (2011). "Bovidae: antelopes, cattle, gazelles, goats, sheep, and relatives". Animal Diversity Web. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Retrieved 2016-02-25.

[headsmashedin2008-4] ISBN 978-1-897425-09-1
. Retrieved 2016-03-18.

[bearbiology2002-5] Wyman T (2002). "Grizzly bear predation on a bull bison in Yellowstone National Park" (PDF). Ursus. 13: 375. Retrieved 2016-03-18.

[Storer_&_Tevis_1955-6] ISBN 0520205200
. Retrieved 2016-03-19.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[6]