Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 4

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WASP-22b

WASP-22b (edit | 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, dead end, meaningless stub. Just another sub-Jovian planet whose only claim to fame is to exist. Lithopsian (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak keep. Has received significant, non-trivial coverage in at least one journal, and probably in two (without reading the second I'm not certain, although it looks like it's one of the two subjects of the paper so would receive significant coverage). This barely brings it up to
  WP:GNG. There's all the normal database stuff too, to get some more content in the article. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have now added the infobox. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 21:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: while it did receive significant coverage in two papers (see above), the author lists have a huge overlap so I do not think it qualifies as separate sources. That is quite a debatable view, and one could argue that two editors accepted it so it is after all independent publications. I prepared to !vote "weak delete" but checking
  WP:NASTCRIT more closely I found For the purposes of this guideline, "independent" means independent of the scientist or scientists who discovered the object (...) - which makes it a clear-cut case, it seems. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep,
   Talk  21:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The article itself can most certainly be expanded, it can be made less "stuby".

 Talk  21:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: besides the two papers specifically about this object, it is mentioned in 21 peer-reviewed papers [1], including one review article. In most of these articles it is part of a list or table, but these are not excessively long lists or tables. Given that a number of aspects of this planetary system seem interesting to the research community, a stand-alone article in Wikipedia does not seem unreasonable. OtterAM (talk) 20:22, 5 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. MBisanz ^talk 11:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Index of medicine articles

Index of medicine articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Serves no purpose, other articles already exist with this purpose

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Which articles specifically? postdlf (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A really interesting proposal. Delete I vote to remove this enourmous time sink that provides no benefit to readers by virtue of being constantly out of date. We have at least 30,000 articles (plus anatomy, physiology, medicine) that can all be put here. What use is there maintaining this huge list? It could, in addition, be automated thus saving thousands of wo/man hours and providing a still equally useless (but temporally present) resource. I fear though there may be some superarching policy or group relating to index articles that may stymy this proposal. --
  talk) 00:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Portal:Contents/Indices#Health and fitness, this page should actually be called Index of medicine-related articles - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Category_talk:Indexes_of_topics

is full of people who say "indexes are useless and duplicate categories" while others says "it is useful for navigational purposes, even for non-editors". The former camp sounds more convincing to me, but I could not see any community consensus on the subject, and an AfD is certainly not the good way to bring it.

If I was forced to !vote I would apply

WP:SAL and this means an immediate delete (unmaintainable list, impossible to be exhaustive or to pick which ones to include), but (as pointed out in the link above) applying a content guideline to a navigation article makes little sense. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

We shouldn't confuse the deletion of this specific index with any debate concerning other indexes, even though they are arguably worthless and there is a discussion to be had there as well. This index has a number of qualities that make it entirely pointless beyond that of ordinary indexes — it is:

• Not maintained — it simply includes a tiny number of possible links, arbitrarily chosen
• Covers too broad a topic — even linking 1% of already existing relevant articles would cause it to be unmanageably large. I will not load properly in an ordinary browser.

Thus it serves no purpose whatsoever — not in any even hypothetical use-case. It should be absolutely evident that it should be deleted at once.

• For this one I would say delete and start over. In its current state it fails to fulfill its purpose. I do wonder though what the development history is concerning indexes and categories. From a look at some random index and category pages, it looks as if indexes are a relic from the days before categories were introduced, but I'm not sure. I think that index pages in general need an RfC, to see what value indexes have over categories (and lists). - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best for now, imaginably acceptable but I suggest a larger article at best next time. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:SALAT (too broad in scope) DeVerm (talk) 21:53, 10 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Corne

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
  WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as not convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject of article is still young and might meet notability in the future, but not for the time being. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:34, 11 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. MBisanz ^talk 11:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jafari Tabar

Jafari Tabar (edit | 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 real claim of significance is made other than the claims near the end involving memorizing and reciting the Qur'an and it's not really clear why that is important. The sources all seem to be related to his death sentence, which may be important enough for an article (it seems to have received some media attention), but this aspect isn't even discussed in the article, and what is in the article is as far as I can tell, not covered in the sources (though I will admit I was unable to translate many of the sources).  DiscantX 01:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing to suggest he is a notable scholar or academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How can the nom evaluate the article if he can't read most of the sources? It should be given the benefit of the doubt on notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I brought it here rather than a simple speedy. There seems to be a claim of notability, in which case it should be brought in front of the community. But in that case, we need to decide in what way is he notable? Is he notable because of his apparent (possibly unsourced) claims to an extensive knowledge of the Quran? Or is it because of what most of the sources seem to cite, that he was executed? Or is he simply not notable enough for an article? Whatever the decision, my hope was that both a second set of eyes would see it and help decide, and that maybe someone here could help translate the sources. While we most definitely do allow non-English sources, it's still up to us to do our damndest to decipher them.  DiscantX 09:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with articles like this is that because they don't look how we would like them to look, follow our ideal layout, use the language sources that would make our life easier etc., they are treated as less credible when there is actually something important there. He is a religious figure who has been sentenced to death (and his wife too) about whom a lot of people have written it seems. I would prefer to wait until someone with strong English-Arabic skills comes along. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with keeping the article so long as notability can be established. As I said though, notability is not clear, and so it deserves a second look. That said, articles on the English Wikipedia do need to meet certain

WP:MOS guidelines. Articles DO need to meet our ideal layout; rather or not it meets a certain philosophy or western way of thinking is another matter, but simple structure and flow are important. These aren't things to consider when considering for deletion, of course, but rather things to consider for later editing of the article if it is kept. Even if the article is kept, it needs a drastic rewrite, and in that case, what are we going to include? Until someone can translate the sources, I don't see this article deserving more than a maybe a paragraph on his execution. Either way, most of the article is unencyclopedic in style and if it does stay, someone needs to rewrite it to pick out the pertinant facts and nothing more.  DiscantX 10:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: its German Wikipedia counterpart says that the guy was an ayatollah, so in that regard he may be notable. The article does need a whole lot of cleanup though, but userfying it seems useless as the creator has not edited since the day he/she created the page in 2015. I'll see if I can prune some of the non-encyclopedic stuff in the coming hour. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My Google Chrome had no problem translating the pages. The first one seems to be a Bibliography search and the other is a blog entry. Both are not
  notability guide lines for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Pmedema, it's worth noting that when I made the nom, that diff had many more sources listed. There may be something more in them, but my Chrome wouldn't translate most so I'm not sure.  DiscantX 09:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No offence was intended and I apologize if I came across as such. - Pmedema (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His father was an ayatollah but notability is not inherited. As for memorizing the Quran, according to List of Hafiz, millions of people have accomplished that goal, so it is not a plausible claim of notability in itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 5 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. czar 14:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Bracco

Jeremy Bracco (edit | 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

• Delete Appears to be one of a long list of "not yet" prospects. Nothing notable about him for now.
  18abruce (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 6 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.

Elina Siirala

Elina Siirala (edit | 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 singer does not appear

Although it could be borderline in terms of notability my preference would be to keep this as a separate page. This is based on

She has just joined one of the large bands in this genre (I believe the first show was to many thousands in Indonesia) - there will be interest in her background and I think that would not be the focus on the main Leaves' Eyes page but it provides a resource for readers to discover more.

She is a member of EnkElination and although the do not currently meet the guidelines of a notable band they have been featured more then once (live review with picture) in UK magazine Power Play that is widely available in large newsagents. The band has also headlined UK venues including the Camden Underworld and Barfly, they have appeared at festivals and supported larger acts including Leaves Eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willzuk (talk • contribs) 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true; however, there are hundreds of non-notable bands which may have a mention in some magazine, and thousands of individual artists who have appeared at festivals and supported more notable artists. It seems that she is not notable at this moment but there is a chance she will become notable a

does not have to be complete now, an article can be created for her then. astro (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete and Redirect to the band as I found nothing better at all and this is still certainly questionable. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her new band Leaves' Eyes is the headliner on the saturday night on the MFVF festival in Belgium. I joined the discussion because I wanted to find out who she is: Metal_Female_Voices_Fest#2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xzt8h7 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC) — Xzt8h7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

My preference would be to keep the article. Yes, a notability line needs to be drawn somewhere, and she's arguably pretty close to falling either side of that line (in her own right, at least). But people will look for information about her on Wikipedia due to her being the frontwoman in a notable band, and I'd suggest giving her the benefit of the doubt and keep the article. She has had plenty of media coverage in her own right before joining Leaves' Eyes, although whether that coverage is in sources that meet Wikipedia's somewhat vague reliability guidelines is less clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargol (talk • contribs) 10:25, 8 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. czar 15:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harsimran Kaur Bed

Harsimran Kaur Bed (edit | 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 former junior tennis player. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply none of this, although detailed it is, suggests at least minimally better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Klub

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

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm a little torn here, because the club certainly played host to many notable bands, was almost certainly the focal point for the city's alternative music scene at the time, and very likely there are plenty of references in Dallas newspapers of the era, maybe even the occasional mention in a national music magazine. But as the author admits on the talk page, the article was pretty much created from memory as a nostalgia trip, and it's going to be almost impossible to find any RS without having access to a newspaper library, so unfortunately it may well have to be a delete. Richard3120 (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as this is familiar territory for me and simply none of this suggests the necessary notability improvements. Even with minimally better, this would still be questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 1 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. czar 15:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Fay

Gary Fay (edit | 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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this suggests the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to fail GNG and definitely fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Hewson

Russell Hewson (edit | 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

• Delete as this is still questionable for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't meet
  WP:GNG may exist. In particular, I am not sure how significant the Senator Joseph A. Sullivan Trophy is, but every other player who won it, with one exception, seems to have an article, and Hewson apparently won it twice, and he also seems to have been a collegiate first team all-star twice, albeit in Canada rather than the US (where that would satisfy NHOCKEY). Rlendog (talk) 12:56, 2 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. czar 15:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Strictnine & Paranorm

DJ Strictnine & Paranorm (edit | 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

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as I found nothing better and the current article is not currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See
  WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 4 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. czar 14:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnamese animated films

List of Vietnamese animated films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced. Almost all members of this list are not notable. Can't see what use this article is in its current form - and has been like this for 4 years. Time to get rid? Rayman60 (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• WP:BEFORE? postdlf (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per
  WP:CLN. AfD is not for cleanup. Redlink does not equal non-notable. Further work needs to be done on the list in conjuction with the Film and Animation projects. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep the nominator doesn't advance any case for deletion. Merely being unreferenced is not a reason for deleting something, having no references available is. The nominator doesn't seem to have done any particular research to demonstrate that entries which don't have articles are in fact not notable. The Vietnamese version of this page does have references and a good deal more of the entries have articles, so it is obviously possible to improve it. AfD isn't a mechanism to get that done. Hut 8.5 21:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: List
  assists readers in navigation and comparison. Not all of the entries are redlinks and due to systemic bias, there probably exist many more in the list that are notable. Esquivalience ^t 00:07, 5 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. czar 14:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kola Adedoyin

Kola Adedoyin (edit | 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 seem to meet Notability (sports) track and field unless I'm missing something in terms of the importance of the events he's competed in Rayman60 (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm not convinced this is currently satisfying the necessary notability, noticeably still needs improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See
  WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete I agree, I can't find what makes him notable; yes he is an athlete but he doesn't appear to have won or competed anywhere significant. ツStacey (talk) 21:21, 4 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. MBisanz ^talk 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indy Reads

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

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

localprogram with only local impact -- and local references DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary improvements and I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strickly Business Reloaded

Strickly Business Reloaded (edit | 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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggesting its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PEC Broadcasting Corporation

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

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

The subject has no assertion of notability. Article was nominated for PROD but the nomination was contested for no reason. Sixth of March 15:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements and I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't find any reliable sources that could make the subject notable. Delete. 121.54.54.11 (talk) 11:44, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dann Visbal

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

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

Non-notable musician who fails WP:BIO. Most of the references are either direct links to the music videos for the songs or dead links. References [5], [6], [7] and [15] link to short online promotional interviews of little depth and belonging to non-RS sources. Article creator has only ever edited this article and that of Buraco (band): he/she seems to have suspiciously intimate access to personal details of the individual – date of birth, parents' names, taking piano lessons aged five, receiving a guitar as a Christmas present, etc. – none of which is mentioned anywhere in the sources provided. Also peculiar is the fact that the article is about a person rather than than the band he is a member of – it also finds space to mention that he is the founder and CEO of a promotions company. Richard3120 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this suggests the needed solid notability improvements, article is still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 2 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. MBisanz ^talk 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isa GT

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

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

Fails WP:BIO as non-notable musician. Three of the four sources link either to her own website or that of the record label she founded, the other links to the web page of her online radio show, so all the sources are effectively WP:SELFPUB. No other reliable sources found online. As a half-Brit, half-Colombian who grew up in London and spent 15 years clubbing there, I can say that she isn't nearly well-known enough even on the London club scene to warrant her own Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this suggesting better for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 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. The one "keep" opinion is not based on Wikipedia policy or practice, and does not address the reasons given for deletion.  Sandstein  17:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Literary Agents

Guide to Literary Agents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced. News searches do not suggest that sources exist which talk about this topic in-depth, although there are mentions here and there. I do not think that this book meets the

• Delete as none of this suggesting better the needed notability, searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, of course, it's a known book. I very seldom if ever look at these deletion pages and have been told how so many fine pages are removed daily. This is the only page I've looked at (and is for one day!!???). Do some people delight in removing the work of others (I don't mean the nominator here, but in general)? People like me will keep away, and those who count scalps will continue chopping I suppose. This page though, what could you possibly find non-notable, it's a recognized book probably used by thousands of people.
  Kryn out. Randy Kryn 20:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - hard to see how it satisfies any of the points raised in
  WP:BK. The thin content suggests that there just isn't much to say about it either. Anything which could be useful (but I'm not seeing what that would be) might be merged to Writer's Digest. JMWt (talk) 21:35, 4 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Kanuth

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

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

No evidence of notability for this political candidate, but that was enough to pass the very weak requirements of A7 . DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that they were already eligible for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then they do not become eligible for an article until they win the election. But nothing here demonstrates or sources that at all. And, in fact, he wasn't even the candidate on the general election ballot, but merely in his party's primary — which counts for even less than being a non-winning general election candidate does. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 10 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 is that it is too soon for an article on this sequel. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miruthan 2

Miruthan 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Film that was previously prodded, film with no info yet that has not started production it appears. And upon looking it up-Miruthan was only released a few months ago, so I doubt this has started then. Wgolf (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  McGeddon (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

McGeddon: actually that source tells us the film planned to begin shooting in July will not be Mirutha 2, and that he does not expect to begin shoting that sequel for perhaps another two years. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, quite right. Even less reason to keep the article, then. --

McGeddon (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

in looking:

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

WP:INDAFD: Miruthan 2 Miruthan sequel

• Delete for even though sourcable, this article is
  far too premature. After deletion, the title can be redirected to Miruthan#Sequel, the one place where it might be spoken of and sourced when not deserving a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
• Delete as clearly too soon. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 9 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) 07:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Carolina Cruz

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

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

Non-notable person. Article is an orphan, sources either link to websites like Amazon where you can buy the individual's material, or to dead links. Apart from purely coincidentally having same surname as Daniel Cruz (musician) and sharing the same publishing company and speaking at the same book fair, both articles were created by the same editor and are the editor's only contributions to Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete As she is director of the publishing house, these books are self-published. Zero in Worldcat. Although from 2009, the books are out of print and not available on Amazon. I don't find any reviews. LaMona (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing for the needed solid notability ad improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 9 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. MBisanz ^talk 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cruz (musician)

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

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

Non-notable person. Article is an orphan, sources either link to websites like Amazon where you can buy the individual's material, or to dead links. Apart from purely coincidentally having same surname as Maria Carolina Cruz and sharing the same publishing company and speaking at the same book fair, both articles were created by the same editor and are the editor's only contributions to Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't find any sources that would push this over GNG. The one review here is in an online magazine (musicnews.com) that may be crowd-sourced, and the review isn't by-lined. I couldn't find anything else. His one album was recorded on Planet Alice Productions, and since his name is actually Daniel Cruz Moreno, that puts him most likely directly related to Maria Moreno who is the founder of PAP. That then looks like self-publishing. His music is found at Amazon and on Spotify, but that only shows that it exists. LaMona (talk) 00:30, 8 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.

Rasmus Andersson

Rasmus Andersson (edit | 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

• Keep - I've been able to find significant coverage of him here, here and here, plus less significant coverage such as [2], [3] and [4]. And none of these mention his 2nd team OHL all-star selection, which while not a factor in NHOCKEY may have also generated some coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also this which I can't open right now but from the headline appears like it could be relevant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally was able to open it and it doesn't add much. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the reliable sources shown above indicate that
  WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Rlendog, sources show GNG if not NHOCKEY —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 16:45, 4 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. MBisanz ^talk 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NRGA Act 2012

NRGA Act 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Are we going to have articles for every draft piece of legislation proposed by every pressure group in India? What is the point of this? We cannot even determine what it might have been because a draft, by definition, is not a static proposal. In addition, the title is misleading because the thing was never even submitted to the Lok Sabha, let alone passed as law - it is/was not an Act. Sitush (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. This isn't notable. The original version of this article was just promoting the act anyway. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it never became an act and is therefore a misleading article 15:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete This is neither a law nor a bill drafted by the Indian parliament. Rather, it is a draft prepared by a lobbying group that never made it anywhere except in a couple of brief mentions in newspaper articles. The one source doesn't name it, doesn't date it and it isn't an act by any stretch of imagination. Non-notable in the extreme. Even the lobby group is of dubious notability. The appropriate title for this article is A draft prepared by a lobbying group that never got written up for legislation. --regentspark (comment) 15:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  WP:SNOW. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per coverage in The Times of India, The Hindu, and The Telegraph for starters. For similar precedent see Category:United States proposed federal legislation AusLondonder (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the Category:United States proposed federal legislation is for bills that are being considered or bills that were not enacted. It does not include bills that were never bills. The act described in the article under consideration was never a bill and is actually a draft proposed by an outside non-legislative body. --regentspark (comment) 02:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: Did you check every article in the category tree? AusLondonder (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Since I actually have an RL life, I read the category description instead. I assume that's why there is a description attached to the category. --regentspark (comment) 16:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be so bitchy. Contributes nothing. AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auslondonder, see

WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete As discussed here, this is not an Act, this is not a Bill, this has never been considered by parliament or the executive. It's a proposal from one group, that's it. —SpacemanSpiff 02:14, 5 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, qualifies for A9 after the article about the musician did not survive AfD--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stepchild (Ganksta C album)

Stepchild (Ganksta C album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:26, 4 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.  Sandstein  17:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of Death

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

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

List fails GNG, there are mentions of a "Summer of Death" but this list of celebrities is not mentioned anywhere, it appears to be an OR-picked selection of individuals who died in a particular time frame in 2009, a personal selection of

• delete I do see a few mass media hits from back in 2009 but the tag appears to have had no staying power whatsoever. Wikipedia is not for some catchphrase headline that nobody cared about a year later. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per
  WP:EVENT presents more stringent criteria than GNG for events precisely because so many events easily meet the GNG, and this "event" does not meet those criteria. -- Irn (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Again an arbitrary list of deaths with a brief and quickly forgotten title created by journalists. I note it coincides with the traditional
  talk) 01:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The topic is notable and notability does not expire. For example, TIME magazine highlighted the phenomenon in its summary of 2009, saying "It was a busy summer for obit writers around the country ... the summer when baby boomers began to turn to the obituary pages first, to face not merely their own mortality or ponder their legacies, but to witness the passing of legends who defined them as a tribe". And here's coverage of the phenomenon years later in a book, which demonstrates the enduring nature of the topic. The naysayers above do not support their opinion with such sources or evidence. Those are just
  personal opinions. Andrew D. (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That's a lie, we have provided policy based reasoning. You have provided anecdotal evidence that this kind of tabloidism has received some coverage once upon a time. The list is unreferenced, once again it's a list of people's personal opinions on who should be listed. Original research that does not belong in any encyclopaedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This, along with 2016 celebrity death cluster are shown to be notable from the large amount of coverage they've received in reliable, mainstream media sources. The claims that this is expected due to the baby boom is proven untrue by the fact that we didn't have anywhere near as many celeb deaths in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 or 2015. Summer is often referred to as the silly season, but these high-profile deaths actually happened, received a great deal of media coverage and this spike in celeb deaths didn't happen during any other summer. There are people saying that 2009 wasn't any different to any other year in that respect. However, if that were the case, why doesn't anyone ever refer to the summer of any other year as the Summer of Death? The Summer of Death included the deaths of high profile people from many fields, including acting, music, sport, politics, presenting and writing. I remember many people commenting at the time about how many people had died that summer. Not until this year has a celeb death spike happened again. Jim Michael (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the other deletion discussion, this is just someone's original research, a group of unreferenced individuals who happened to die. What makes these people more notable than those who aren't listed? What is the inclusion criterion? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reliable sources referenced on the other article, and similar sources can be added to this article. It's not one person's research - it's the research of many people and organisations. The talk pages of each article are the places to discuss who should or should not be included. Are you really saying that there was no celeb death spike in June-September 2009 and in January-April 2016? If so, why have the public and the media concentrated on those two periods of time? Journalists didn't all go on holiday for the whole of 2010-2015; why didn't they say there was a celeb death spike at any point during that time? Jim Michael (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of unreferenced names, it's original research. What are the inclusion criteria please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the names are referenced to reliable sources. The inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page. For the time being, anyone cited by a reliable source as having been part of the Summer of Death (or similar expression) is eligible for inclusion. Jim Michael (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And many are not, and where are all the other celebrities that died during that period (you can find many in

Deaths in 2009 by the way)? This is a poorly defined, badly written piece of tabloid journalism trash and should be removed, and glad to see the consensus is in favour of that. One down, two to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Which celebrities (not notable non-celebs) who died between June-September 2009 aren't included in this list? What was the 'one down' you mention? Jim Michael (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2009 which would be perfectly normal. And where does summer extend from May to September? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This article and the sources that mention it are Americentric - they have ignored most of the British celebs who died during the same period. I wouldn't include May in this article because a) it's not summer in most of the world; b) there weren't many celeb deaths in that month. Most sources who mention the Summer of Death don't include May. Summer lasts from May to September from about the 20th parallel north to about the 40th parallel north (with the exception of those areas at high altitude). Jim Michael (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the premise of the article is poorly defined, the inclusion criteria are poorly defined, the subject matter is tabloid, the lasting impact is negligible, the statistical significance is zero, this is a non-article. Cheers for clearing it up. That's it from me here, looking forward to seeing the consensus enacted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing that it meets

WP:GNG. -- Irn (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Which part(s) of WP:EVENT are you saying that this doesn't fulfil? Jim Michael (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be glib, but pretty much everything under "Inclusion criteria". The part I've quoted repeatedly and that I think is most important is that events need to have "lasting, historical significance." The "Summer of Death" has no lasting effect, no significant impact over a wide region, little or no in-depth coverage, and almost nothing beyond a relatively short news cycle. -- Irn (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how you define it. How much impact? How do you define a short news cycle: a week, a fortnight, a month? Jim Michael (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't an encyclopaedic topic: it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see in a gossip magazine or particularly stupid tabloid newspaper. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Humans (famous and otherwise) have been dying for over a million years, and probably have a century left. That a few content farmers noticed a "link" between Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett is their business entirely. Enycyclopedias shouldn't suggest there was "something going on" that summer. No celebrity has ever died without another following soon enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also wager fewer than 10% of our readers have any idea who Budd Schulberg was. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Having an article about the fact that a particularly high number of high-profile celebs died in summer 2009 isn't propagating a conspiracy theory. The Summer of Death was noticed by millions of people, not merely a few content farmers. Jim Michael (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Something going on" doesn't mean a conspiracy. Just means there's something real connecting these deaths, or something actually unusual about the pattern. There isn't and the article admits it, so why even insinuate it? Hjördis here has been noticed by over 38 million people, but you don't see Hjördís here. Ten million people watched a press fold paper. Sixty-six million watched Fred swim. There's a place for that stuff, but this isn't it. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article states there was "nothing statistically unusual" about the deaths, thus signing its own death warrant. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:43, 12 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.  Sandstein  17:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sky News Weather Channel programming

Sky News Weather Channel programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - a list of programmes is not encyclopedic. JMWt (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I would agree with deleting this particular article, considering it doesn't cite a single reference nor do any of the programs have their own article, as well as the fact it is horribly out of date, I disagree with the blanket statement "a list of programmes is not encyclopedic". There are dozens of articles that list programs airing on a network (
    ABC, Bravo to name a few examples) that link to articles and/or reference titles. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I know that there are a whole load of other similar pages. Personally, I don't consider this to be a particularly useful argument in AfD discussions as per
      WP: NOTTVGUIDE. JMWt (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Understand but respectfully disagree with you on other pages, however I do agree that in this particular case, this article should be deleted because it has NOT ONE citation, either on the article itself or through any wikilinks. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:29, 6 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.