Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 May	19 May >

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 no consensus. There is no clear consensus on this article which has been re-listed three times and has been at AfD for over a month. It has failed to achieve clearer consensus after each such re-list so I am closing this as no consensus.

(non-admin closure) st170e^talk 23:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Sallar Deylami

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

Article does not meet

WP:BASIC. Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :The article satisfy both of above criterion. according to
WP:AUTHOR.m,sharaf (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Apparently an important Shia Islamic jurist, but needs more research and better references.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I urge the article creator to read
commonly used— variant in English sources. In this case, try Sallār al-Daylamī, or the basic transcription Sallar al-Daylami (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: The recording of the name is both as persian-as the name of article- and also as arabic. I choose recording as persian because he was a persian jurist. I think this is just dependence of selection. m,sharaf (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then Draft if needed as I was mixed between Keeping, but that's frankly only if this can actually be improved, and then Draft, which may allow for better familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. Article subject is notable, but article needs a lot of improvements, and doing that is going to be difficult, because I think this is one of those subjects on which the available sources in English are going to be relatively poor – I'm sure there are many more sources in Arabic and Persian. (I can find reliable English sources that mention him, but none that discuss him in detail.) Persian Wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article on him. @Mehdi ghaed: since I take it you are a Persian speaker, maybe it would be a good idea to work on a Persian Wikipedia article first, using Persian language sources? If the Persian article becomes good enough, we could always try to get someone to translate it to English. Also, WikiShia has a decent if stubby article on him, but unfortunately no references, and I don't think we can use the WikiShia article since as far as I am aware it isn't a reliable source. SJK (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wrong, there is a Persian Wikipedia article: سلار دیلمی. I can't read Persian, but from Google translate it looks like it is better quality than this article. Maybe a good way forward would be to improve the English article by translating the Persian one. Still, unless someone with the necessary abilities steps forward to do it, I think sending it to draft until that time is the best option. SJK (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SJK: I think you've got the wrong page. فارسی is about the Persian language; you probably wanted to link سلار دیلمی. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes. I had the right article in mind, I just copy/pasted the wrong string. Farsi all looks the same to me, so easy kind of mistake for me to make. I corrected my comment. SJK (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Needs a lot more copyediting before this becomes mainspace-worthy. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there's a consensus that the subject is notable, then I don't see grounds for deleting or draftifying it. Removing it from mainspace deprives us of opportunities for other editors to collaboratively improve the article. -- IamNotU (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After a month in the AfD pages and three relistings, it would not be too

bold to acknowledge that this debate has run its course, with consensus supporting the preservation of the article. The sole call for deletion beyond the nominator raised a genuine concern about sourcing, but the points raised about problems in locating Arabic-language sources are also valid. Perhaps those who are serious about keeping this article will take a proactive effort improving the sourcing - but if none can be located, this debate can be started anew in the near future. For the moment, however, this is a (somewhat long-winded) non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Tarik Nehai

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

Declined speedy because "played at highest level for country." Notability guidelines at

WP:BASIC if person competed at the highest level of their sport. However, the only reference on this page is a deadlink, and surely even if it was still working a single reference on a sports blog is not sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. There seems to be virtually no coverage at all. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source isn't even about the subject. Its a table which has the subject's name in it [1]. This is not thorough coverage. Fails GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to SwisterTwister:Added secondary sources. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 06:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You added 3 sources, [2], [3], and [4]. The first one is a press release so it doesn't count. The last two are about the 25th and 26th Arab Volleyball Champions Club, respectively. It is not about Tarik Nahai himself. This makes the last two fail
WP:ROUTINE. So, yes, you added 3 sources but none of them helps establish Tarik Nehai's notability. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Reply Most of the sources are about his less notable coaching career (2006, 2007, 2008). The simply reason, most of the secondary sources of 1994 you can't find online or are in the Arabic language. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 07:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. You can't just assume sources exist, you need to actually provide them. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong keep Repaired link and added secondary source. He played at the world championships and so obviously meets Volleyball notability guideliness, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volleyball/Archive 1#National team participants. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 06:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I do think you should mention you are the page creator (and have creator dozens of similar permastub articles). None of those sources appear to be reliable sources. The first three sources have a different spelling of Nehai's name. Can you even confirm the correct spelling of his name/that this is the same person? Anyways, volleyball isn't even mentioned in

WP:NSPORT. You're supporting your keep from a talk page of a wikiproject - it's not even an essay. The notability guidelines are pretty clear - playing at a high level provides a presumption that there is significant coverage of the person. If the only available sources simply say he existed and played for a team, then for what reason should we keep the article? At best this could be merged or redirected to the 1994 Algerian men's national volleyball team (which, I must point out, the notability of which is also questionable). FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply, You say Anyways, volleyball isn't even mentioned in WP:NSPORT indicates which athletes are notable at international and national level, and of course all sports listed include the World Championships participants. In summary, this person is notable because it played for the national team at world championships and the article also has secondary sources. Your main points are about quality, not notability. And if I read the first three sources, the names are in all the three sources written as Tarek Nehai, but another spelling is possible because of the translation from the Arabic language. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 07:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
If you think volleyball deserves to be on NSPORT, you're welcome to seek consensus to have it added. But it's not on there (just like hundreds of other sports aren't on there). Which leaves
WP:GNG, which he clearly does not qualify for. Besides, your sole source for even saying he appeared at a world championship is based on a website called todor66.com. And it says nothing about whether he played in a game or not. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The subject is a member of an international sports team. He played in the World Championships. No basis whatsoever to even consider deletion. Greenman (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than
WP:NSPORT? Nothing on any of those pages support keeping this article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
"An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor" Greenman (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the last part of that sentence: "as listed on this page" and "so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Volleyball isn't listed on the NSPORT page. Many sports and other activities are not listed there - there's only around 30 on the page. There's almost nothing on this person other than it appears that he was on the Algerian national team (based on a very low quality website with questionable reliability). It's not even clear if he even appeared in a game at the 1994 championships. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that only 30 sports are individually listed on the NSPORT page I interpret not as that only 30 sports have notable competitions, but as examples. I don't hold that that representing one's country in the World Championships is not notable. Greenman (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. If you look at the talk page for NSPORT you'll see suggestions to add other sports. Adding another sport requires a process of seeing whether we can actually assume there is substantial coverage for athletes who participated in events in those sports. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Run the articles through Google Translate. They are not international competitions. They were the 25th and 26th Arab Championships. The article wasn't even about the subject. They were about the match itself. They merely had his name in it. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which comment you're referring to? Are you doubting that the person appeared in the World Championships? I agree that the new sources added refer to his coaching career. Greenman (talk)
[5] that is the only source that says he played on the world championships. That is just a mention of his name. That can not be used as a source about him as it is a mention and not an article about him. [6] that source and a few others uses " 26e édition du championnat arabe" which is "26th Arab Clubs Championship." Some of the sources on the page are about the 26th Arab Clubs Championships and not about the World Championships. Those arab championship articles are mere mentions too.CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Greenman. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a closer look at the sources. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. He has played at the highest level and we must remember that Wikipedia has a systematic bias against topics from non-English speaking countries. I would suggest that an Arabic speaking editor or an editor residing in Algeria could probably find plenty of sources for an accomplished national volleyball player.--TM 14:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regarding
WP:MUSTBESOURCES, it's fine if there is a reasonable belief that those sources do not exist. But we have a policy that specifically allows for someone who has played at the highest level, so this allows us to be a little more flexible (and patient!) in getting those sources. There is plenty of reason to believe they do exist, and the article is not without any sources at all. If the article contained no verifiable sources at all, then sure, delete it, but that's not the case. There is no reason to rush to deletion. -- RM 02:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chaplin (actor)

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

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

Subject does not appear to have won any awards nor appeared in any well-known movies nor have been the subject of non-trivial discussion in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Current references (2) consist of a link to the subject's personal website and a link to IMDb, which lacks independence. A Google search turns up Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and this article. Having been the descendant of Charlie Chaplin does not confer notability (per
WP:NOTINHERITED). KDS4444 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I found an article from the 1960s, in the New York Times. It looks like there was a court case over his book, which he lost. Apparently he wrote it with some ghostwriters, which wasn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article but is mentioned in the NYT article. I also added the filmography section and removed the corresponding part in the article, which was fairly
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

It appears that the court case got written up in a few academic sources. Now his role in A King in New York was substantial enough to where it gets mentioned on occasion and I get the impression that at the time, the court case was fairly major. However I'm a little uncomfortable keeping the article on these sources, as the main reason his role got attention in the movie was because of who his father was and the court case doesn't have so much coverage now that it'd be a slam dunk keep. I'm leaning towards maybe merging this into one of his parents' articles with 2-3 lines about him being an actor and the court case. Deciding where to add it would be the biggest issue. I'm really not finding much out there that is actually about him - the majority of sourcing just shows him commenting on his late father.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

It looks like there are a lot of articles on Chaplin's kids with Oona up for deletion and so far I'm leaning towards a section in their mother's page for the lot of them.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Charlie Chaplin as best connected there, overall article is still questionable for independence. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum the book and court case should be covered. I don't have a strong policy stance on whether we keep this article vs. move that content somewhere else, but it should not be deleted. I'm comfortable keeping and leaving determination of where to put the information up to those who edit the content, although the suggestion by
Tokyogirl79 strikes me as reasonable, at least until more and better sources can be found. -- RM 02:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Mr. Chaplin played a very significant role in his father's film A King in New York and the sourcing of the article is not a problem. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The general consensus is for keeping the article. There is only one endorser of the nomination; the debate has been in AfD for over two weeks. A relist would not have anymore effect in my opinion.
(non-admin closure) st170e^talk 11:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players

Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet GNG or NBAND. The only cited portion of the article is the overview. All the ELs and refs save one are dead, and because they 404ed and weren't inline, there's no way to tie any reference to any statement. It also looks like each release in their discography was released on a different indie label, so there's a real question of notability of those albums as well. MSJapan (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no way are they not notable. This band was a fairly big deal around 2002-2003, and there must be a lot of press about them from that time. Besides what's already in the article, I just found writeups from NPR, The New Yorker and (from 2011) DigBoston. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - A lot of press from a very specific period of time does not confer notability, because notability is not temporary. Recentism is also an issue to consider as well. One of the major problems is their releases - they're a band who meet no NBAND criteria, so if they got press for one year or less of their 11-year existence, that's not going to confer notability. There's also depth of coverage - what I notice in a lot odf these articles is that they revolve around Jason Trachtenburg rehashing the origin of the band as "I came home and we taught Rachel drums, and Tina had slides from an estate sale" as the majority of the article. Multiple rehashes of the same material don't contribute to depth of coverage. By all means, though, source whatever you can in this article to the New Yorker article. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "notability is not temporary", are you referring to
this guideline? Because if so, it may mean the exact opposite of what you think it means. It doesn't mean "something truly notable stays notable for a long time", it means, "even if something is notable for a short time, we'll consider it notable". As for the type of coverage they got: it's true that a lot of it was repetitive - as befitting what was basically a novelty act - but I don't think that's one of the criteria for music notability. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I'm speaking about the other piece of the policy that states "there's a threshold to reach significant coverage", and it's got to be outside the cycle of flash-in-the-pan news, for one thing. The criteria for music notability is
WP:NBAND. There are twelve criteria, and according to the criterion on coverage: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases." So, in short, no interview of the band is acceptable towards this criterion because of a lack of independence, and every single article is either an interview with Jason Trachtenburg, a crib from the New Yorker article, or both. There's no way they meet any of the other 11, either. MSJapan (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you saying that interviews don't count toward notability? That doesn't sound right... I think the "independent of the musician or ensemble itself" wording is meant to prevent using articles like, say, one about Jason Trachtenburg and his new pet ferret as proof of notability. But these are interviews about the band, and their music. By your logic, if a band had hundreds of pieces written about them, but they agreed to an interview for every single one, they couldn't be considered notable - provided they didn't win any awards, etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, but let's look at the comment, because it does make sense despite your phrasing. If a band did nothing but interviews, that's entirely self-promotion. If they only had interviews, that means no third-party critic ever reviewed their shows or albums. An interview isn't necessarily objective (Ex: David Bowie claimed he was bisexual in an interview back in the 70s, and the comment followed him for decades, after which he disclaimed it and regretted saying it), so addressing a lack of third-party objective coverage of the band (via material independent of talking to the band) is what the notability guideline is focused on. So, yes, it is correct, and the material in quotes above is directly from NBAND criterion 1. MSJapan (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make a fair point. I just did a search on "trachtenburg family slideshow players review", though, and found a bunch more stuff: here are non-interview reviews in A.V. Club, BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, and (for what it's worth) LAist. Good enough? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those review the same DVD (the AV Club and LAist sources), The Independent reviewer didn't like them much, and BBC Berkshire might be considered local (I'm not sure, but we've had issues in the past where people have tried to portray BBC regional coverage as BBC national coverage, so I would have to ask someone more knowledgeable about that). I noticed that all the UK coverage is from a several-month period in 2004 (clearly when they were on tour there, and the articles are very similar), and the DVD reviews are in 2006. Given that the band existed for 11 years,
WP:NBAND #4 might be met; I'm not sure, because again, the sources are basically saying the same thing, so depth of coverage still seems to be a problem. MSJapan (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete at best for now as I actually found a few several news sources at News, but it's all still questionably better comparing against the article. Delete at best since the coverage is also expected in that it was only active for 11 years thus not entirely noticeable. SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage to pass GNG. Substantive coverage includes a New Yorker profile [7], a
Brooklyn Paper (also 2010) [12], a Sundance Channel documentary (as noted in a Variety review) [13], and more as noted above (and by the way, it is irrelevant whether a reviewer likes the band or not). --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:NOTE only requires one of the two. -- RM 03:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently leaning toward keep because the band certainly gained widespread coverage in major music magazines and newspapers when they were around – when I'm in the UK next month I'll have a look in NME and other British music magazines because I'm 100% certain they would have been featured in there, and they certainly were played on the alternative music shows on the national music station BBC Radio 1. Richard3120 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--
^"talk" 22:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

InverRadio

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

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

A local radio station that lacks notability: I can't find any sources for it. It doesn't make any claims to be notable and the article itself has one source alone. st170e^talk 23:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -By the looks of it the radio station's now defunct and the article just hasn't been updated (The website's dead, The Twitter page's been dead for 6 years, The Youtube channel's been dead for 5 years and the Facebook page redirects back to the homepage), All that aside the one cite in the article is apparently a picture ..... There's not one news article or even a mention on Google and the books are all sourced by WP so basically there's not one bit of evidence of notability ... at all ....., How the article's survived for this long I will never know but it fails GNG anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with all of the above. MB (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 12:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Chiarelli

Talia Chiarelli (edit | 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 too familiar with Wiki's guidelines, but I do see the questionable notability here. No doubt this article was written in good faith and this young woman has had wonderful accomplishments, but not sure it merits a page. She's a college athlete that has had success in international competitions, but nothing exceptional (yet!). Perhaps her page can be merged with her team's page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis8780 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nominator. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
WP:AFDHOWTO. I offer no comment on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 22:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. DeviantAttitude (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 22:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 22:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search here showed a few mentions, and there is an in-depth treatment here, a mention here, some coverage here, and getting an honor here, and a mention in the Boston Globe and a second mention here, and in-depth coverage here and her photo here. Meets the
WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No matter where she goes, the local coverage follows her. She's been covered by good sources in Michigan, Boston, and Ottawa. She's made a national tournament, been in the top 12 in Canada, and got 2nd place team and 13th place individual in an international event. I suppose there may be even more sources and evidence to support notability, but I've seen enough to pass
GNG. -- RM 03:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--
^"talk" 22:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Omnisoft services

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

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

Deleting per
WP:COMPANY - does not meet notability guidelines. There are three references on the article; the last two references are dead. Article is rather promotional in nature and the company's website has been taken offline. The article doesn't give any evidence for notability and nor can I find any. st170e^talk 23:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I found a unsourced revision a couple of months ago that said the company was out of business, which I tend to believe. I also found on the originators talk page that the article was speedily deleted for lack of notability a couple of weeks before this version was created. I'm not sure how that happened, but it still fails. MB (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One detailed source is not enough for notability. Plenty of time has gone by and there should be a lot more coverage at this point if it were notable. I don't see it. -- RM 03:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all here convincing of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Belfast Herald

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

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

I've been sifting through Northern Ireland related articles and came across this defunct newspaper (it lasted 9 months) and I am proposing deletion per
WP:ORG. Specifically, this article doesn't provide any references; it provides one external reference to a now defunct website. I've also tried to find sources/references to use but I can't find anything of significance. In my opinion, this doesn't warrant inclusion on Wikipedia and it was only open for 9 months. st170e^talk 23:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk!) 01:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk!) 01:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I added a reference to the article, but I don't think it is enough. Apparently the paper was pushed by local politicians and the college, but there doesn't seem to be anything more than just that it was founded and then it was closed. -- RM 03:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually suggesting solid independent notability for its own article, no enough time to have accumulated enough. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naafia

Naafia (edit | 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, but the rationale is still valid: no sources, no indication of notability. bonadea contributions talk 21:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per established practice (see
WP:HAMMER) for upcoming TV shows. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparently being released this month, but it's still not yet solid for its own notable article, at least for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. --
^"talk" 22:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Andrew and Daniel Frankish

Andrew and Daniel Frankish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not sure about this, but I have doubts about the article's neutrality. I'm not sure if this is to provide information,or to shame the people involved. Adam9007 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the article is a neutral account of an event which was of interest to hundreds of thousands of people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGotSatan (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very poor sourcing - almost entirely comprised of sensationalistic tabloids which either fail BLP or come very close to the margins. No evidence that this event was of lasting significance and we'll certainly never know enough about these two people to write actual biographies of them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as "lasting significance" of an event? --IGotSatan (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest reading
WP:CRIME. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we don't attempt to document and record every perpetrator of every crime ever. Guideline, in pertinent part: Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. While utterly awful, there doesn't appear to me to be any evidence that this is a particularly noteworthy or historic crime. We need some critical distance from the event — preferably months to years — to know whether this merits an encyclopedia article. Even if the incident is determined to be notable, we would need to move the article a title such as 2016 Redcar animal cruelty incident, because the article would not be a biography of these two men, but rather an accounting of a criminal act. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and redirect to 2016 Redcar animal cruelty incident. I am sure such awful cruelty has been reported in other reliable sources. Redirect the offenders names to the new article. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no redirect per
WP:1EVENT. It is sad but not specifically notable. Meatsgains (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -WP is not a newspaper. Agree with WP:1EVENT. MB (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 2 above.
WP:1E. 12:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC) User:Boleyn

Delete. Of course it's to shame the people. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Bishonen | talk 18:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:LASTING.--Auric talk 12:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is a clear case of Wikipedia is not news and we have no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per comments by
WP:SENSATION.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

SNOW Delete as nothing at all for any actual Wikipedia notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ossama Albayati

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

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

Advertorial-toned
WP:CREATIVE -- it asserts that he's won six awards, but fails to source that to media coverage about the award wins. But no Wikipedia notability criterion can ever be passed just by asserting a claim of significance; a notability criterion is passed by sourcing that they've garnered media coverage for that claim of significance. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
WP:BASIC for lack of available sources.- Mr X 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nothing at all here actually convincing of any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was
Iridescent 21:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Dre Rich Kidd

Dre Rich Kidd (edit | 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
WP:GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Please note also another article with the exact contents and I actually PRODed it, Drè Rich Kidd. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which I deleted as an A10 speedy...Lectonar (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and we both collided nominating it, there's simply nothing suggesting imaginably better for the applicable notability and it's likely best too soon. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)^{[author missing]}[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Not seeing anything notable about it. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE This Musician is a well-known Celebrity hosted by MTV — Preceding unsigned comment added by CEOBryantR (talk • contribs) 22:34, May 18, 2016‎

CEOBryantR is the article's author and has has made no edits outside this topic. Meters (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he's a "well-known celebrity", why have you provided no evidence of it? Maproom (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing new since 2009, and MTV link is an exact copy of this article. chatter) 01:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination. Based on their request at
conflict of interest with the article's primary contributor. Wani (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete with no reliable sources and nothing out there that I can see. The MTV.com database entry has a "contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form. Such content is not representative of Viacom Media Networks" disclaimer along the bottom and it seems possible for anybody to make a page there. --
McGeddon (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete blatant violation of Wikipedia:Advertising--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, purely promotional. BMK (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned it up, got rid of a lot of the garbage, still non-notable. BMK (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the previous prod & speedy delete, title should be salted as well. BMK (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Excessively promotional, no evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely promotional and advertising. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
snow clause. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Being party of a Disney Radio incubator program for young artists doesn't satisfy
WP:MUSIC notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--
^"talk" 22:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Alex Alvarado

Alex Alvarado (edit | 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:NPOL. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Agree with nominator. Not notable just as candidate. A quick google search did not even turn up any coverage of his candidacy. MB (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unelected candidates for a state house seat are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raage Anuraage

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

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

TV show with questionable notability and no reliable refs to be found. It is also just a short sentence for a plot. Wgolf (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – I added a couple of sources to the article, but per source searches, the topic does not appear to meet
WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

comment-a related article that I put a prod on is Bhola Maheswar. Both made by the same person (they also created Milon Tithi) Wgolf (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have found some links but simply nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kennedy-Chapman

Peter Kennedy-Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

conflict of interest. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - only a candidate, and Labour doesn't look good lately. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, UK Labour's current woes don't have much bearing on this at all — he was a losing candidate in 2010. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing at all for actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the subject does not meet MMA or GNG requirements. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig Magee

Padraig Magee (edit | 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 mixed martial artist does not meet
WP:GNG. This was a contested PROD (for the same reasons) by the original author. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable amateur MMA fighter who has 2 wins in 3 fights according to sherdog. He obviously doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No significant coverage and fails the MMA notability requirements.Mdtemp (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per
(non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Jonah Hodges

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

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

College football player who does not meet the notability standards for
WP:REFUND per a request from an IP editor but not subsequently improved. --Finngall ^talk 17:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I suspect he would have become notable had he not broken his collarbone and lost a season, but that's all speculation. As it stands now, I could find no significant coverage independent of the team in reliable sources. Sources definitely talked about him quite a bit, but it was always in connection with the team, and they were discussing other players at well. I searched for a bio piece on him by major newspapers, but I came up empty-handed. ~ Rob^Talk 20:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Cbl62 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, "independent of the team" means that we don't rely on coverage published by the team or university for which he plays. Thus, we don't rely on team press releases or, in general, articles published in university-published student newspapers. But coverage in editorially independent daily newspapers is considered to be "independent of the team". Cbl62 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NOTNEWS, which is about newspapers, not a team press release. It's routine coverage for a newspaper to just say "so-and-so had a good game and here were his stats". This is coverage that all athletes get, notable or not, when they have a few good games over their career. They don't have to be the focus of the article, correct, but there has to be some substance above their name and stats, in my opinion. In any event, I'm changing my vote to weak keep based mostly on 4, 9, 10, and 11 which you posted below. Maybe 3 and 5 as well. I see the rest as pretty much routine coverage. ~ Rob^Talk 04:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
GNG is not a precise science, but it looks like we end up reaching the same conclusion. Thanks for keeping an open mind. Cbl62 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs improvement, but the subject is notable. Playing for a Division I FCS team, he rushed for more than 1,200 yards in 2014, including a school record 275 yards in a single game, and 1,757 all-purpose yards. He broke his collarbone in Sept. 2015 and missed the bulk of the 2015 season but will be back in the fall of 2016. See here (Hodges back to full health as of March 2016). He passes
Times of San Diego, Oct. 17, 2014; (8) "Jonah Hodges sets USD rushing mark in game", Santa Cruz Sentinel, Oct. 12, 2014; (9) "Toreros RB Jonah Hodges out at least 4 weeks'", San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 6, 2015; (10) "Former Santa Cruz High running back Jonah Hodges transfers from Cal to San Diego", Santa Cruz Sentinel, Feb. 18, 2014 (available for fee on NewsLibrary.com); (11) "SC's Hodges a do-it-all star", Santa Cruz Sentinel, Oct. 21, 2011. Cbl62 (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and cleanup per Cbl62's research. Good job.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm willing to withdraw the nom provided these sources get incorporated into the article. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 14:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are satisfied that WP:GNG is met, then a withdrawal is appropriate. However, I don't think you should impose a condition that one of your fellow Wikipedia volunteers must dedicate loads of his/her time to immediately re-write the article to incorporate the new sources. Cbl62 (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the purpose of this discussion should be "is the subject notable" and not necessarily how to edit the content of the article. Granted, sometimes editing for content comes up in discussions because sometimes the content is so poorly written that deletion is the best course--but that is far from the case here. The question is, "should the article be deleted" and the reason given is that the subject did not appear to meet notability standards. Once those standards are met, keeping is the proper step. Enthusiastic editors for the topic can then jump in and add the material in a way that makes sense. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a
WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's research and sources. I also want to say that I agree with Cbl62 that "independent sources" means sources that are independently published, not sources that are "independent" in terms of content relative to the subject at hand (which could be difficult to determine and could be endlessly argued, anyways). Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) st170e^talk 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

TorilMUD

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

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

Article topic lacks
video game reliable sources custom Google search and only cursory mentions/listings in other sources. (It should be patently obvious that Yahoo! Wild Web Rides and Massively are not enough to write an article on the subject.) There are no worthwhile redirect targets as the MUD list only includes independently notable items. czar 21:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Massively and Yahoo! Wild Web Rides cites suffice to establish notability; "enough to write an article" is not and has never been an element of the
GNG, and is impossibly subjective in any event, as the boundary between "stub" and "(real) article" is impossibly subjective. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The quotes from those two sources are copied in complete in the article's references. This shows just how little our sources have something to say about the subject. AfD consensus has required much more for
significant coverage. We have no reviews, no commentary, just passing mentions and directory listings. czar 16:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you're thinking of the Playing MUDs on the Internet cite rather than the Massively cite. I'm not leaning on that one because it's very shallow and a weird case, being mostly about the drama-filled history of which TorilMUD was one of the end results. The Massively cite isn't quoted at all and does contain commentary. The Y!WWR cite is a review, and comments on and evaluates the topic, obviously. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call Yahoo Wild Web Rides a review—it's closer to an informational listing, especially considering the source. But even if it was—it wouldn't add up with Massively to be
significant coverage by any measure. czar 20:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As it turns out, it does by my measure. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Chaos5023. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the two RS above, there is a mention of the MUD's influence on Everquest in book "MMOs from the Inside Out" by Bartle. There is also another brief mention in another engagdet article. Note that asserting lack of notability because there were only a couple of hits in
video game reliable sources holds little weight, as it could simply be a crappy search query for text-based games like this. In particular, the search missed both book refs. I'm still undecided on a recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

It's a very complete search but only of what is available online in vetted sources, and it isn't the basis for the nom. If all we have are mentions, then our coverage should be proportional—e.g., a mention in some related article. czar 00:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently meets the GNG, as evidenced by sources discussed above. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, we're talking about two sections: (1) Massively/Joystiq, and (2) Yahoo Wild Web Rides, an offline section the above editors likely did not view. Moreover, two sources, even if you contest the lack of importance of their length, are never enough for the
general notability guideline, even if adding the other mentions alongside. Diligence, please. czar 07:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I am not aware of any codified consensus that "two" is now an example of "single" rather than "multiple". —chaos5023 (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and below Vir4030 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the previous keeps saying that multiple sources covering the topic help it pass the GNG, but more importantly, the recently added Engadget article boosts the notability significantly. Quote from that source: "TorilMUD is one of those games that pop up again and again whenever MUDs are mentioned, not just for the fun that folks had playing it but for its direct influence on the MMO industry." —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus.
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is also relevant. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Eckhard Wandel

Eckhard Wandel (edit | 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 with dubious notability, does not meet WP:PROF, subject has expressed a desire for deletion Keilana (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Where has the subject expressed a desire for deletion? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: They sent it to the WMF, who passed it on to me as an OTRS person/functionary to look at. Keilana (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Notability is adequate and could be a keep, but I vote Delete to accede to subject's wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as above. No view on notability, but I cannot see a compelling reason to go against the subject's wishes in this case. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

del per nom. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best a borderline case for
WP:PROF, so it's ok to follow the subject's wishes. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no clear indication of passing any notability criteria for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to
(non-admin closure) st170e^talk 11:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

HTTPA

HTTPA (edit | 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:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " Which instead I'll use for this AfD. At best this can be merged to some article dealing with broader http-related topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with HTTP. - it is not notable on its own. Should be part of the HTTP article. Xaxing (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with HTTP. - I prodded it just because this was new protocol that is being used researchers who introduced it. And this is being used by the private companies only. This has not been accepted Broadly as an Internet Protocol. The only internet protocol we use is HTTP. I being Telecom & Electronics Engineer never heard about this in my Graduation. This could be some extension to HTTP, so merging it with HTTP would be the best solution I guess. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 17:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as obviously closest connected and there's nothing to currently suggest it's own acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was closed as "merge", but is now relisted following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 2 where participants expressed the view that a merger would be difficult to implement; please see that discussion before contributing here. Sandstein 17:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the reworked prose into Tim Berners-Lee#Current work. This is a project out of Tim Berners-Lee's group. Berners-Lee was the inventor of HTTP, so this isn't some random grad student project. It has gotten press coverage at Motherboard, ZDNet, and Science 2.0. There looks to be a published paper on it at Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web. The news articles were around the same time, so I count them as one RS and the paper is primary, hence I don't think this reaches notability. Basic facts, however, are verifiable and as one of the current projects of Tim Berners-Lee's group, Tim Berners-Lee#Current work would be a better target than HTTP, as HTTPA isn't close to a standard yet. Because of the deletion review, I have reworked the article into an explicit proposal for merged material. --Mark viking (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark viking: While this is a more workable suggestion than the merge to HTTP, I'm still not convinced that this is the appropriate thing to do. The problem being that is in fact the work of a single grad student, whose press release just happened to get picked up (one of the perks of having a famous advisor, I guess). Berner-Lee's Decentralized Information Group lists this neither as a past or current project, or as a selected publication. It only links to MIT's press release from Current News. So claiming this is a "proposal being developed by Berners-Lee's research group" may be overstating things a bit. It also seems somewhat trivial compared to the other things mentioned as Berner-Lee's current work. If someone brought Berner-Lee's article up to featured status, I don't think it would mention HTTPA. Simply mentioning the Decentralized Information Group would seem more appropriate. —Ruud 11:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to HTTP - Didn't need to go to DRV either. –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not going to happen. AfD discussions cannot compel a merge. They can only decide on whether a topic is notable enough for inclusion as a stand-alone article or not. —Ruud 11:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's alot of confusion over it - A few say AFDs are not Merge-discussions and thus close them as Speedy Keep, Most (like me) simply close the AFD as merge and move on to the next one, I don't see a problem with it and if I'm being completely honest it seems you're only using the "This cannot be merged" tactic just to get the article entirely deleted which isn't going to happen, Consensus is to merge so closing as Speedy Keep would be silly on all forms - As you can see from the picture it can be done so it may aswell be actually done. –Davey2010^Talk 14:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While an AfD can certainly be closed as a merge, the actual merge is not going to happen unless someone 1) makes the effort to perform the merge (properly, preferably) and 2) is willing to defend the inclusion of the to be merged material on the target's talk page. Merges are a lot more complicated than pressing the delete button, and AfD voters rarely make the effort to do either when voting merge. —Ruud 16:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking notability and as not worth merging to HTTP or Tim Berners-Lee § Current work. Rebb ing 15:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Holy Archangels, Bălți

Church of the Holy Archangels, Bălți (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A couple of new (post-2000) parish churches; no discernible architectural, historical or societal claim to notability; no more than routine coverage. No particular reason to have these two around. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page:

Holy Trinity Church, Tiraspol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep both as they seem to be notable buildings having good references to support a claim of notability and therefore passing
WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I find your justification quite weak. Allow me to explain.

While we don't have a specific guideline for notability of buildings, I can think of a few things (aside from GNG) that would establish a building as notable: its age, its listing in a history registry, its design by a notable architect, its having hosted notable events, its special attributes (great height, unusual design, etc). With regard to a Roman Catholic church, a cathedral would generally be notable, a parish church not, unless some of these other criteria were met. It so happens none of them are.

As to the sources, for Bălți we have two dead links to the local Catholic diocese, a link to a non-existent page on ro.wiki, raw video footage from a Catholic news service and passing mention in a church newsletter. In addition to being unquotable, these sources also happen not to be independent.

For Tiraspol, we have two Catholic database entries and followed by five book pages that don't even talk about the church but about the status of Transnistria and of the Chișinău diocese.
So, er, how exactly do these pass GNG again? Just where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Because I am certainly not seeing it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no
WP:N. And in light of that, I would agree with Biruitorul. The sources here are very weak, inclusion on some list of churches/buildings, and passing mentions in very local, very niche sources that don't seem particularly reliable. It's one thing if a church is a historical building (monument). But outside that, unless there's some proper coverage per N, this fails at being encyclopedic. Ping me if there are any new arguments for me to consider. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- While I would love us to be able to have articles in WP on every parish church. The consensus has been that they are generally NN. There is nothing in these articles to indicate that there is anything out of the ordinary about them; where there is, we usually keep the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Uzi Vert

Lil Uzi Vert (edit | 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:MUSBIO. Not yet a notable rapper. SanAnMan (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one source is given, and it treats the topic as possibly up-and-coming, i.e. not yet notable. Willondon (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SanAnMan (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've found some news links but nothing convincingly better and the article is still overall questionable for this applicable notability. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one source and
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tom29739 ^[talk] 22:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
SSTflyer 11:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Continental Airlines Flight 1883

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Continental Airlines Flight 1883

Articles for deletion/Continental Airlines Flight 1883 (2nd nomination)

Continental Airlines Flight 1883 (edit | 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 aviation incident for a standalone article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the incident caused procedural changes and is thus notable per
WP:AIRCRASH. This argument was mounted at the last AfD and seems reasonable. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. If you follow the "Keep" comments at the end of the last AFD discussion, you'll see my arguments for inclusion, which haven't changed. The key point is that this incident was fully investigated by the NTSB and resulted, among others, in changes in air traffic control procedure, which affect all flights since. It is very rare for an "Incident" (as opposed to "Accident") to be fully investigated by the NTSB and create policy or regulatory changes that have long-lasting effect, and this is considered a criterion for notability (and inclusion) on WP. Crum375 (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Crum375 « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given by Crum375 above. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Laser Brain stated, passes WP:AIRCRASH since it was able to change procedures with ground and air safety.
Talk to me 22:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep- As pointed out by
WP:AIRCRASH which is an essay even the nom William values in previous AfDs. [14]. WP:AIRCRASH is conspicuously missing from the same nom's rationale this time.--Oakshade (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – In agreement with Crum375 above, notable aviation incident for a standalone article per WP:AIRCRASH, although this is an essay and not a guideline. Maybe it should become a guideline page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swing Dance Hall of Fame

Swing Dance Hall of Fame (edit | 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 significant coverage in
WP:ORGDEPTH. Also note that the establishing body, the World Swing Dance Council is also at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Swing Dance Council Jbh ^Talk 13:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources are
WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. I can find no significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and indeed any reliable independent, secondary sources that mention it. Theroadislong (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

PROPOSE: if you google "world swing dance council" you'll see that they apparently have developed some "point system" used for competitions that is cited/used by many, many dance sites/dance competition websites...I think this alone might make the council itself notable...but perhaps the content of this article could be merged into that one??68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just googled "world swing dance council" and found nothing on the first 4 pages about any point system, and it's not clear why this alone would confer any notability? Theroadislong (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you mean the Universal Unit System, according to her article it was created by Skippy Blair. She is a founder of WSDC but according to ("Skippy Blair and the Universal Unit System". Examiner.com. 26 May 2010.)_{url blacklisted} she created it in 1978 a decade and a half before the formation of the WSDC. Jbh ^Talk 17:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea...they seem to have rules/guidelines that various dance events/competitions use in some manner...the sites for these events/competitions refer to the Council's rules/guidelines/point systems..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments may have some relevance to the World Swing Dance Council article but NOT this one which is about Swing Dance Hall of Fame? Theroadislong (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
right, but proposed merging this one into that article (but that will turn on whether the organization should have an article...if it should then it would be fine to list their hall of fame inductees etc there)...so it's like one in the same conversation going on over two different rfds...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Heraldry Society

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

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

This heraldry hobbyist club has couched itself in very aggrandizing terminology in its self-authored WP article (see: "learned society"). The article has only one reference which "alludes" to the society's existence but doesn't mention it by name. It has had a citations tag on it for 5 years and the situation still has not remedied. A search of Google News find two references since 2012, both incidental, and a search of Google Books none. I've looked-up the organization in the index of two offline heraldry books I own and can find no reference to it in either. The organization's own website seems to indicate it's simply a message board. According to it, it was founded a decade or so ago, briefly sponsored a few awards, journals and other minor activities, but appears to have burned out and is now just a semi-active message board. Semi-active message boards do not meet our GNG. BlueSalix (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing anything but passing mentions in Google Books. As the article doesn't show any references suggesting any coverage of the topic, I say delete per failure of
WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete. I found the article interesting and would like to keep it. Although it's been around since 2005 there are insufficient references and coverage to justify keeping. Perhaps keep a REDIRECT to United States heraldry where it is mentioned - although that mention is also without a reference. MB (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect - The references I could find in news here and here are passing mentions that in no way render notability. A redirect to United_States_heraldry would be better. Mwenzangu (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.
WP:CSD#A11 JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Saiteria

Saiteria (edit | 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 manga. Could not find any reviews or even bare mentions. Happy Squirrel (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Seems to be a self-published comic and not an actual manga. Absolutely no mention of it anywhere including manga databases. Searching for the kanji just yields Facebook pages and other social media where it has been posted. I'm not sure but it might also meet speedy deletion criteria
WP:A11 for being invented. Opencooper (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete per
WP:A11 this isn't the place to promote invented works. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete per
WP:COPYVIO) Blatant advertising of self-published non-notable work on Deviant Art. [15] It's not manga. It just uses a title with some Japanese on it and adds a (c)1999. Not in Media Arts Database. Not in Anime News Network. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I have tagged it for speedy deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleiodes gaga

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

Aleiodes coxalis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aleiodes tashimai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

All three fails
WP:CFORK. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

If I understand what you are proposing is that the three independent species be treated together under one article about the genus. As a matter of history, let it be noted that two of the species articles had their independent existence for about 6 months before the genus article was created. It wasn't, historically, a matter of forking the genus into species. The third species, A. gaga has independent interest as a representative of new method for mass identification of species (although I don't suggest that all 179 species of A. be treated - to be honest, the association with Lady Gaga, however trivial, is was makes this species stand for the whole).

Anyway, I don't really care whether you decide to delete the species as long as the information on the species is retained - especially the unique information of the method of identification of A. gaga. Although I would be interested in hearing from those who worked on the independent existence of the other two species. And I hope for a quick decision before I waste any time on the identification by way of DNA barcoding. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes their independent
notability is what is being discussed as the nomination for deletion. You might wanna expand them if you believe they are independently notable. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Are A. coxalis and A. tashimai also being informed that they are under consideration for deletion? TomS TDotO (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is present in their respective pages. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 19:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 17:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 17:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. But do expand these. I don't think extremely short articles on species are very helpful. Plantdrew (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree that extremely short articles on species are not helpful. However, the most important thing about A. gaga is what it shares with 178 other species, which is the method of discovery. Perhaps that is most properly explained in the Aleiodes article, rather than an independent species article. IMHO, the next most important thing is that Aleiodes is to be distinguished from Aloeides, and then that it is named after Lady Gaga. I don't know that there is much more to be said about it in a separate article. I leave it to others to speak about the other two species - there must have been some reason why those two species were given their own articles.
Well if someone isn't willing to expand these then no point in keeping them. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The problem is that sources lack information, not that editors are lazy. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
With regard to A. gaga, it is a new article, and perhaps with a bit of motivation more can be found. Who added the species to the Lady Gaga article - do they have anything to offer? I don't know that the sources lack information (one requires a subscription to read), and I haven't done any digging for other sources. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, all the more it clarifies the nomination to delete them and have the content as part of Aleiodes don't you think? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When doing
WP:BEFORE I found pretty much nothing. Now, I am not the best online-searcher on Wikipedia, and even that guy is probably beaten by an expert in the field when it comes to finding sources about the species; but I strongly suspect no such info exists, because the article about DNA barcoding was about discovering the species, so you cannot expect that a few months after publication much more has been found. The topic could have potential, and maybe in three years there will be plenty of things to say about the species. But right now, the article has no reasonable prospect of expansion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect at least coxalis and tashimai to Aleiodes. As noted above, there is very little to say about these except for their discovery, but if the discovery itself is the real subject there is no need for standalones. If ever any of them is studied and proven to have individual nontrivial characteristics, by all means recreate, but right now I see no reasonable prospects of expansion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Plantdrew's statements. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plantdrew's comments have been addressed above. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to clarify my position, notably in reference to
WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES
: well, first of all, "common outcomes" is not a guideline, so it is not binding blah blah blah.

I think most non-extinct species are notable because they exist and someone probably wrote something about them when discovering them, even if digging the original source is hard. So that is a presumption of notability: by their mere existence, biological species are likely to be studied.

But that line of thinking is based on the mental image of the zoologist-adventurer of the 19th century trekking in Amazonia to capture butterflies. Each data point is rare and precious there, so that every one of them is well-covered (even if WP editors could not find them within a week of AfD). The story here is closer to a huge computer milling over DNA data before printing its report of the day of how many new species he has found and storing it in logs that none will ever read entirely, so that most species will be ignored by scientists. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was the person who created the articles on the genus and the species A. gaga, I am undecided about the outcome. But I did a quick search on the genus, and came across this Shakira, Robert Frost, Ellen, and other famous people get wasps named after them, which tells us about these famous people who are namesakes of species in this genus: Shakira (A. shakirae) Robert Frost (A. frosti) Ellen Degeneres (A. elleni), Stephen Colbert (A. colberti), Jimmy Fallon (A. falloni), and John Stewart (A. stewarti). I also found an article in the Dutch Wikipedia on another species of this genus and I don't have the motivation to look further. I'm beginning to be sorry that I got into this. TomS TDotO (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
wp:deadline to expand the articles. The species exist and so their pages. DeVerm (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:OUTCOMES says "This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; it is intended to be an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page." I do not think that it is an open-and-shut case. I would really like to hear from the person who created the first two pages why they chose those species among the thousands of Aleiodes species. It could not have been an arbitrary decision. TomS TDotO (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
My point is that nom states that these articles fail notability because the sources do not suffice. IMHO, there seem to be valid sources and
WP:OUTCOMES states that they are, for that reason, inherently notable. I am not pointing to the essay as being a guideline, but to explain my reasoning. The essay says that "it is intended to be an explanatory supplement" and I was hoping it was doing exactly that: explain my standpoint. I do see that many species are missing on WP but that doesn't mean we must delete the ones we have. I am in the jungle of Panama as I am writing this, and besides a number of research stations of the Smithsonian Institute, I regularly see zoologist adventurers capturing butterflies with nets exactly like depicted in 19th century images... which means that this is not a thing of the past and such an assumption should not form a base for deletion of these articles. DeVerm (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I am reading about the genus and I find them fascinating. I have to assume that the article on the genus is not in danger of being deleted, and will add to that. I haven't come across any information on the "original" species, though. TomS TDotO (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are recognized species, they should have articles. Otherwise they just turn into redlinks on the genus page - not an improvement. The minimal sources necessary for the particlular flavour of notability required for species on WP are there, that's sufficient. Let them sit and grow.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drafts can't be deleted at AfD due to lack of notability so it will need to go to MfD. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Campbell (vocal coach)

Ross Campbell (vocal coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recently created biography of a non-notable, but no doubt very competent, singing teacher. A thorough search for significant independent coverage results in the subject comprehensively failing both the general inclusion criteria at
Notability (academics). Contrary to what was originally claimed [16] in the article, he is not a "Professor of Singing" at the Royal Academy of Music (RAM). According to his own bio there [17] and RAM's Musical Theatre department [18]
, he is simply one of the singing teachers in the department, not even head of department. RAM has several professors—he is not one of them.
He has no recording career. I can find no reviews of any performances where he had a lead or soloist role, despite the vague claims on his RAM page. His one publication is a songbook series published by the
Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music for which he was one of the three compilers. The series won an entirely non-notable trade association award in 2009. This year he started a private musical theatre training course in London, covered solely in a press release-based article in The Stage. The course (projected to have 20 students) isn't even scheduled to begin until October 2016 and they are currently touting for applicants. This may account for the haste with which this article was created in spite of it having been speedy deleted twice as Ross Campbell (Singing Specialist) and four times (and finally salted) as Ross Campbell (International Singing Specialist). Not to mention the abandoned Draft:Ross Campbell (International Singing Specialist)
.
Note that he is not to be confused with the composer of an obscure 1978 string quartet, despite the fact that WorldCat has mistakenly linked them under the same identity [19]. Nor is he to be confused with the mildly notable Scottish composer active from the 1990s named Ross Campbell (also linked under that WorldCat identity). Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Musical Theatre. Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When coming here, I thought I'd have things to add to this discussion, but Voceditenore has expertly covered it all. Given the history, I recommend that this be salted after deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Voceditenore. This article does not satisfy
WP:PROF or any other notability standard. Shouldn't this also be deleted?: Draft:Ross Campbell (International Singing Specialist) -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. And Draft:Ross Campbell (International Singing Specialist) also. Sandcherry (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people involved in the deletions of earlier iterations of this article, I'll give the creator a small amount of credit for adding a bit of referencing this time, as
conflict of interest of some kind (i.e. he was a student of Campbell's, an administrative employee of the school, or a paid public relations consultant who had been hired to get Campbell into Wikipedia) due to his sheer persistence in recreating it no matter how many times it was deleted. All told, there's still nothing here to suggest a credible or well-sourced reason why Campbell has earned coverage in an encyclopedia at all. Delete both the article and the draft. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this and all related drafts. I'm sure Mr Campbell is an excellent vocal coach... but then so are many others around the world, there's nothing to demonstrate his notability above any others in his field. So he and two colleagues picked 100 songs of other people to put into a book for aspiring singers (so fails WP:AUTHOR), and his business venture is not yet under way (so it fails WP:ORG). Really there's absolutely nothing to suggest any notability whatsoever. Richard3120 (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
SSTflyer 11:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Miss Perú 1965

Miss Perú 1965 (edit | 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 sourced conform
WP:RS. Relevant info already present in Miss Peru The Banner talk 11:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
SSTflyer 11:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Miss Perú 1964

Miss Perú 1964 (edit | 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 sourced conform
WP:RS. Relevant info already present in Miss Peru The Banner talk 11:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
SSTflyer 11:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Miss Perú 1963

Miss Perú 1963 (edit | 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 sourced conform
WP:RS. Relevant info already present in Miss Peru The Banner talk 11:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
SSTflyer 11:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Miss Perú 1962

Miss Perú 1962 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Clearly not a real pageant, not sourced conform
WP:RS. Relevant info already present in Miss Peru The Banner talk 11:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Procedural close to move to
(non-admin closure) —  crh ₂₃ (Talk) 09:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

43nd People's Choice Awards

43nd People's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The text for the title is the incorrect title. It states 43nd instead of 43rd. CCamp2013 (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Procedural close, moving to RfD —  crh ₂₃ (Talk) 10:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violations and unambiguous promotion.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Lyari Notes

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

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

No indication of
notability. Unable to CSD as A7 doesn't cover documentaries because they're not defined as "Web content". Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is pretty unambiguously promotional, especially considering that the page ends with a link to the Linkedin profile of the PR person who wrote the article. While I appreciate their disclosure, that's not really how it's supposed to be done. This could probably be speedied, but I'd like to look for sourcing first.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

If I find enough, I'm going to actually make a new article to replace the current one. Right off I found this, so I'm optimistic. This is all too spammy (and likely has copyright issues) to remain on Wikipedia as it currently stands.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yup, copyvio. I'm speedying it as such. It looks like it is notable, but the article was very poorly written. Again, I like that the editor disclosed their COI, but this was the wrong way to write the article.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to India_national_under-17_football_team#Competition_history. MBisanz ^talk 16:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 AIFF Youth Cup

2016 AIFF Youth Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

PROD contested by User:Ramit.mukherjee.1994 for the following reason: "It is too early to say that this competition will not become an annual or biennial competition. Plus, there is a need to properly represent Indian under17 football on wikipedia before the much coveted 2017 u17 world cup. Thus, the article should stay."
First reason is obvious
WP:CRYSTALBALL. As far as anything is concerned for now, it is a one time event which may continue. Also the representation for the India U17 team is not a proper reason. The India U17 team has their own page and this tournament's fixtures/results can be put there for them. Cheers. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ and refocus to the single-event competition (trim the
WP:CRYSTAL
material).

While "It is too early to say that this competition will not become an annual or biennial competition" is a blatant reversal of the burden of proof, and predictions about later editions of the contest are pure speculation, that event has a fair bit of media coverage (see sources, and also [26]).

Considering that this is an international tournament, it would be inappropriate to merge to a national team's page. I do not see any adequate target, though I would not oppose a merge if it exists.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it is an international tournament, it is not an official one... not under FIFA, the AFC, or the South Asian Football Federation. It is just under the All India Football Federation and is a quick tournament set-up just to give practice to the Indian players before the AFC U16 Championships and the U17 World Cup, for which will be their first time. None of the players in the tournament are even notable as well (thus why competitions for the under-14s do not exist for example). Also the coverage is nothing special honestly. There are some papers about how this is the first test for the under-17 side but most of the reports are from the AIFF and US and Indian soccer/football blogs mixed in and a few press releases and match reports. Nothing really substantial that, in my opinion, call for an article under GNG. So I guess this is me contesting your Keep reason. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, "international tournaments" are not notable just by being international; I only gave my reason to oppose the merge to a single team's page.

As for the coverage, independent sources picked it up and it passes GNG in my eyes (that these sources are vastly outnumbered by SPS is irrelevant). Yes, refs #2 and #3 are in all likelihood copies of the same press release, but it is coverage nonetheless. GNG might not be fair (a minor soccer competition is to my eyes less encyclopedia-worthy than a semi-obscure ancient ruler, for instance) but it is relatively objective.

I actually think thinly modified press releases should be discounted for the notability test (on the basis of
WP:GNG independence clause), but I have met opposition in the past to such a view, on the basis that (1) determining that something is a "PR in disguise" is hard to do and (2) a newspaper that publishes a PR implicitly endorses its content. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay... either way, this does not pass GNG. This tournament has only gotten the same amount of coverage that say the I-League U15 league got. Of course national papers such as the Times of India will pick it up, esspecially their local versions, but there is no extensive coverage, not many details about the tournament other than what it is which is just a friendly tournament. It is really no notable at all under a footballing-scope and should be added to the 2015–16 in Indian football page or mentioned in the India U17 article. That is it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the results of the competition could just be included in the under17 team's page and that would serve the purpose. However, the 2017 u17 world cup is an event of utmost importance in Indian football. Considering this, I feel that this page should be allowed to stay, mainly because the performance of the under17 team in this competition is important for the world cup. Secondly, it is also true that the tournament has received much media attention, and has been promoted a lot by the AIFF. Keeping all this in mind, I feel that this page will be of much interest to readers who are excited about the u17 world cup and are developing an interest in following the Indian u17 team. Thus, I propose that the page be let to exist as of now, and be deleted at a later stage if it becomes only a one time event. Cheers Ramit Mukherjee (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, whether the U17 WC is of utmost importance in Indian football
is not the way Wikipedia works; it is better to have no article about something that later happens, than having an article about something that actually will not happen: I could write a plausible fiction about Donald Trump's presidency (2016-2020) but it would be highly inappropriate to have it on Wikipedia until after the events actually occurred. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
See, my whole point is this tournament, however little some might consider, is of importance to the under 17 team and people following it (maybe small in number). Secondly, What I suggested was that if this tournament lost its relevance in the future or is not held in the future it can be deleted then. Currently, I believe it is a pretty relevant topic for Indian football and specially the u17 team I mean, to delete an article just because it might not take place in the future seems a bit unfair. Anyhow, I really do not have any more points to add. I feel, I have presented my case, as the creator of the article. The whole intent of creating this article was to provide those interested in the event a proper read. Now, it's entirely upto you guys if you want to delete it. Cheers Ramit Mukherjee (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you click on the links I left in my previous comment, they point to Wikipedia policies (
WP:INHERIT) which, in my view, completely refute your arguments. Simply restating your arguments without addressing my points is of little value. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

As I said, I have no points to add even with regards to the links you left. If interesting and uninteresting are subjective issues, I believe importance and non importance should be too. The page depicts an event that is currently going on, finds substantial coverage on the media and even if not interesting to a majority, might be interesting to a limited number of readers. So, this I do not feel qualifies only for personal interests. With regards to the links you left, the
WP:ITSINTERESTING mentions "Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet and their kids. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may not care about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article." I really am not very conversant with wikipedia policies and other technicalities and hence would not be able to present my points or defend my article on such grounds. What I have used as a defense, lies on the grounds of logic and common perception. Thanks, Ramit Mukherjee (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - non-notable youth friendly competition. Not organised by a continental or even sub-continental body. No indication of wider GNG beyond
routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge a small mention in India_national_under-17_football_team#Competition_history, and leave a redirect. Changing my !vote at second thought and after discussion with nominator above - that one is a good target. I still think there are enough sources for a standalone article (even if I do not like it), but a merge is good enough. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively into India_national_under-17_football_team#Competition_history. It's worth a note there, but not its own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect and then mention however amount needed, still questionable for independent notability at best. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect over to some part of India national under-17 football team. Even if the competition is perhaps somewhat notable, putting information there frames it in the right context and seems to be the most helpful thing. Minute details about the competition shouldn't have undue weight and can just be discarded. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems official enough, and this is one of the first youth tournaments India has hosted. There has even been coverage in the United States. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the coverage in the US is limited to the blogs and SI and more just general coverage (squad and match reports). Nothing really substantial. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Mercy (game)

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

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

Completely uncited. No claim of notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a legit game. I found one source [27]. Let me see if I can find more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The game is widely known, though documentation is difficult to search for. Also looking for further sources. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now sourced (thought I didn't look at the sources) and a very well-known game. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had added 2 sources. Now it seems more have been added. I have also noticed references to this game in many children's/young adult fiction. Since it is quite well known, I think we can keep this article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Joanne Jordan

Joanne Jordan (edit | 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: non-notable
actress -- mostly small and uncredited roles. Quis separabit? 05:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Probably more notable for her TV work. The multiple obits in good sources suggest sufficient notability, e.g. [28], [29] as well as the one already cited, plus other coverage exists, e.g. [30], [31], [32]. --Michig (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources cited above, particularly 1 and 2 , allow
WP:BASIC to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Good sources found show that she was notable on TV in the 1950s. Passes GNG and probably NACTOR if we can source all of her roles. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger In My Land

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Stranger In My Land (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Stranger In My Land (film)

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

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

Its just a local short film uploaded on youtube only, not a feature film,the article should be deleted Changgogoi (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
inclusion criteria is. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 04:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in
looking beyond
the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

and through
WP:INDAFD: Stranger In My Land Duyu Tabyo Kargo Basar Dipit Agarwal CoreConxept Entertaintment

Comment: Sorry
WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per my own work showing this short film as meeting
WP:NF. Perhaps not a happy topic to those of mainland India or a topic they may not like (sorry), but notability to the 29 states of Northeast India is good enough for en.Wikipeida. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

actually I am just an new editor .. I want to delete it coz may be some people dont like the article to be here ... or may be take action against me .. the story shown in the movie is happen all the time with North-East Indian peoples when they travel to citys like Delhi,Banglore etc. Changgogoi (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh.... but just as I
reason to delete an arguably notable article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All are agreed, I think, that there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the
notability standard. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Neo Ouija

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Neo Ouija

Articles for deletion/Neo Ouija (2nd nomination)

Neo Ouija (edit | 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 sourced since December 2006, despite being tagged since then. Additionally, it has been tagged for notability since January 2011. Kept at AfD back in 2006, but nobody has lifted a finger to improve the article in all this time. Delete unless somebody is prepared to make an assertion of notability by introducing reliable sources that indicate notability. Safiel (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not able to find any real independent source of information about this label, outside of track listings that indicate the label exists. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bands listed are mostly not notable enough to get articles. Those pages that do exist, don't mention any connection with this label. - SimonP (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not helped at all by the fact that half the blue links in the artist list actually redirect to an article on a completely different subject, not one for the artist. Metamatics himself and Apparat and Benjamin Wynn (aka Deru) are probably the only artists on the label for whom it might be possible to source enough material for articles on the artists (it would still be tough to pass WP:NBAND)... but even so, we're talking about the record label here, and there isn't any assertion of notability or that sources exist for an article on the label. Richard3120 (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches have found nothing particularly better and the current article is also not convincing. Certainly enough consensus here but I will also notify the only still active AfDers Bejnar and Yamaguchi先生 for convenience. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for lack of coverage in reliable sources, fails
Deru do have Wikipedia articles, Adam M. Raisbeck's band "Sense" does not. Sense (band) at Wikipedia currently refers to a former synthpop one-album trio of which Paul K. Joyce was a member and redirects to Paul K. Joyce. Adam M. Raisbeck's band "Sense" (aka Soulenoid and Whatever Man) might rate an article, they put out 14 albums between 2001 and 2014, but I see no real need to research them, as Neo Ouija lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources. Deru's article is under his real name, Benjamin Wynn. Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article missed his first album Pushing Air which came out in 2003. Soundcloud (not a reliable source either) currently lists Neo Ouija as being out of Weimar, Germany. The connection between the 2000-2005 record label and the current, 2007- , is unclear. The British mail-order house, Forced-Exposure, only lists Neo Ouija albums from before 2005. From the little I could glean, Neo Ouija was an innovative albums producer and probably rates a footnote or two in a history of early twenty-first century music. Could anyone suggest a redirect? --Bejnar (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

But even if those albums were "critically acclaimed" (and we have no sources to verify any of that), that doesn't mean the record label they were released on is notable, even if Discogs were to be considered an RS. This is the problem – even if the artists/records pass notability, I can't see that their record label does... seems a bit of a
WP:INHERITED argument to me. Richard3120 (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Its is a claim to notability, i.e. that is why people should write about Neo Ouija, it doesn't mean that they have achieved Wikipedia notability. And yes there are positive reviews for those three aforementioned albums (and others produced by Neo Ouija), but that is not the point. There is a claim to notability; however, it does not appear to have resulted in significant coverage in reliabe sources. --Bejnar (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. The prior discussion from 2006 was a unanimous keep, myself included, based upon speculative claims of notability. Our metric for reliable sources have markedly improved since then, and no such sources have come forward within the ten year span since deletion was last considered. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus after ten days and relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junna Nakata

Junna Nakata (edit | 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:BIO1E. Stub is about the actions of two Popes, with almost no biographical details about Nakata. LukeSurl^{t c} 13:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as I only found a few links at Books, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a
WP:COATRACK with no establishment of independent notability. Fieari (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Agreed, looks like a
WP:COATRACK. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete At the best fails
WP:BIO1E. Found a bit of passing coverage, nothing in depth though. —  crh ₂₃ (Talk) 10:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic Adventure

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

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

Prodded for failing
McGeddon (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as there's nothing at all for the applicable notability, being the largest is still not always something solid to save an article and that seems to be the case here. It's also only about 7 years old so it's unlikely to have a colossal amount of sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks strong independent sources. TripAdvisor simply doesn't cut it. Meatsgains (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (
non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa

Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Little coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator, seems to have more coverage than I could initially find. Giving some
WP:POTENTIAL for the mean time.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep, if not speedy. Should pass
Pro Tour Top 8s. --Sesameball^Talk 07:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on
WP:BEFORE check. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The
WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. It's been a decade since any of those "overwhelming" arguments were made and none of those pages have improved past minor stubs about a 2-3 year period of their lives based entirely on a non-independent primary source. The local consensus hasn't been evaluated in many years either and youtube mentions combined with a passing mention in a single book are not sufficient to pass GNG. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain about this but if I'm the only hold-out, I'll withdraw my deletion !vote. Seems like there's some possible more mentions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - Even clicking on the "find sources" links above gives multiple sources (e.g., [34], [35], etc.). Even a standard google search reveals [36] and [37] on the first page. Also note article subject is Brazilian, so will likely find many additional Portuguese language sources (e.g., [38]). Hard for me to
WP:AGF in these cases, to be honest. --Sesameball^Talk 18:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It's hard for me to tell about the Portuguese sources, but it seems like most of the sources, make just a passing mention of Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa. this source, this source, and this source might make the cut, so I'll consider withdrawing this nom--Prisencolin (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
the rules, you won't be able to withdraw unless Ricky81682: strikes his !vote. "Pepper" @ 01:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cup of kings

Cup of kings (edit | 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. (Note that this is not the same as Kings (game), also called king's cup.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Non-notable, possibly even an advertisement for a new product, given that the only reference is a kickstarter page, not even a product page. Fieari (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_18&oldid=1142223851"