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

The result was Redirect as my searches simply found nothing better and there's nothing to suggest a solid independent article (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystery of the Flaming Footprints[edit]

The Mystery of the Flaming Footprints (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 WP:NBOOK, a search shows it is a popular title but nothing useable for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the series is well covered at Three Investigators although it doesn't include a list of the books (there are 43 of them). A list somewhere would make sense, but not individual articles for the books. LaMona (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LaMona: Actually, a list exists here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The American series of The Three Investigators, as a redirect to the list of the series' titles is reasonable, the search term is plausible given the series' popularity, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stormpilot[edit]

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

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

Article about a shipping pair which at present exists only in slash fanfic. While some reliable sources have been added here which speculate about this maybe turning into a thing in the real movies, none of them confirm that and none of them use this title as a "name" for it — the sources for the name are parked entirely on Tumblr blogs, making it an improperly sourced neologism. This might just be WP:TOOSOON to start an article about something that might eventually qualify for a Wikipedia article — but as of right now, a neologistic name for something that still exists only in non-notable fanfic is not appropriate for inclusion yet. (And even if it does eventually happen in the real movies, it's still unlikely to warrant a separate article as a separate thing from the articles about the characters involved in it — I can find no evidence of any case where we have "biographical" articles about two individual characters in a movie franchise, and a whole separate third article about those same two characters' relationship with each other as a separate topic from their biographies. Even the most obvious real world equivalent I can think of off the top of my head, Brangelina, exists only as a redirect to supercouple rather than as a standalone article about Brangelina's Brangelinaness.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Massive speculation and PoV - minimal actual content - Arjayay (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably too soon, but there are some sources available. It'd be constructive to give this a chance - for example, with some careful work, this could be useful to merge into Star Wars: The Force Awakens - fanwork is part of the reception of a movie. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's also an existing example of this kind of article: Kirk/Spock. That's the original and most famous slash pairing in fan fiction; it's an article about fanwork about a non-canon relationship between those characters. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll also point out that, regardless of the legitimacy of the topic itself, the 'ship name' for this pairing is still very much in flux, with 'Finnpoe' & 'Poefinn' also used in equal measure.

• Delete - This article stems from a nickname relating to the desire (I can't even use the word "Speculate") of a romance between two characters in the future Star Wars film releases. It doesn't seem to even amount to WP:CRYSTAL yet. Only a few of the sources listed in the article even mention the word "Stormpilot" at all, while the rest simply mention a (maybe) trending hashtag for social media. If anything, I think this is WP:TOOSOON. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I renamed the article to Finn/Poe and reframed the lead sentence, since I agree that "Stormpilot" doesn't seem to be the most popular name. The sources are mostly about the fan activity related to the Finn/Poe concept, which is a legitimate topic in itself (separate from speculation about future movies). Dreamyshade (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The list of refs is impressive, but I am missing inline citations. Not my kettle of fish, but I accept it is of interest to some. Slap the {copyedit} tag on it and it should be good after some revisions. Zezen (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as tending towards WP:FANCRUFT. Kirk/Spock warrants an article as the Slash originator, and is discussed in that context, but at most this article should be merged (briefly) into a section on Star Wars Shipping, a Non-canon Star Wars article (which is an article that'd definitely have enough content and sources given the permissiveness re films), or maybe as one sentence in a fan-reaction subsection for TFA. There's a lot of fan ships and slashfiction in popular genre fiction, and the myriad pairings don't warrant standalone articles, even if covered by news -- for instance there's a lot of reliable sources for the existance of Drarry, Hannigram, and Stucky... ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 04:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of fanwork in general is an interesting question - these things are significant parts of popular culture and belong somewhere, even if not as their own article. Looks like Poe Dameron#Reception has a couple sentences on the topic already, and it'd make sense to add one to Finn (Star Wars) too. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burger[edit]

Mark Burger (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 should have been speedy deleted several years ago, but the nominator reversed himself, so I thought I'd be polite and bring it here instead. The subject appears to be a thoroughly average Catholic priest in the US. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the subject spoke at priestly conferences - not notable - and apparently published a book, for which we have no source. I'm guessing it's not a best-seller, or widely available. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It definitely exists, but as a self-published book, it obviously wasn't a best-seller and isn't widely available; see its WorldCat record. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. LaMona (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable member of the clergy....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as mentioned above, simply nothing for a better article it seems. SwisterTwister talk 18:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found one source, however this would be considered primary since it looks like it's published via the Church, who would of course have an obvious interest in writing about its clergy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) → Call me Razr Nation 01:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Wieland[edit]

Carl Wieland (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 third-party sources for notability. This person's claims for notability rest entirely on the website he writes for. --Pete (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to be well-known in Australia. I found few sources, but my reach into Aussie sources is limited. Guardian Inducted into Creation Science Hall of Fame Nat'l Center for Science Ed U Chicago Historical Records of Australian Science. Most of these only mention him. There are lots of fringe sites that have quite a bit about him. I think he is notable as WP:fringe, but the article needs the full POV to be useful. LaMona (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  I became aware of this AfD from the nominator's contribution list after he/she removed all of the external references from Russell Humphreys.  This nomination on a potentially controversial topic disregards WP:BEFORE and the policy WP:PRESERVE, and the only claim is easily refuted by reading the previous AfD and the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The third party source seems to be The Creationists, which to my eye looks to be kin to The Immortal Storm. There are some minor mentions here and there, often in comments to media articles. The majority of links are from one site, and this is getting pretty close to self-promotion. Perhaps the article could be improved, but the sources I saw with the search tools provided are pretty minimal. --Pete (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The book "The Creationists" is the most important anti-creationist book published so far. It is long recognized at THE reliable source on Creationists. Carl Weiland is one a many important Creationists. Just being mentioned in "The Creationists" makes one a creationist to be noted. --OtisDixon (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Linden[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:JOURNALIST. Recreation of a deleted article. There are many references presented, but not one of them provides significant coverage of the subject. Instead, the sources are a mix of passing mentions and articles written by the subject herself. Pburka (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• agreed. mark for deletion. Soulseek324 (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC) struck !vote of a sockpuppet - they edited a number of AfD pages in addition to the one the sockpuppetry concerned, aparrently in a bid to make the sockpuppetry less conspicuous. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turquoisesummer RichardOSmith (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Subject is notable, enough sources for notability, the person is a writer for many notable major publications and a professional journalist and music critic and was a regular on a VH1 television series, full disclosure, I am the editor who created this article. Maybe not the most notable journalist but a journalist who has had a career writing for The New York Times, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, Sentinel-Sun, Vibe, Al Jazeera America, and others, this person, in my opinion, is more than notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sources confirms notability. There are name-checks, and non-independent sources (places she works for), plus articles she has written, but none ABOUT her by an independent source. LaMona (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is cobbled together out of trivial mentions. Doing your job doesn't make you notable. Having articles written about you makes you notable. There is not significant coverage in reliable sources for this person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I waited until commenting but I simply believe there's simply not enough for a solidly better article here yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DaveApter (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Total Commander[edit]

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

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General Notability Guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. Marslo2015 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found lots of reviews: [1] from Chip, [2] and [3] from PC World, [4] from Tom's Hardware, [5] from Softpedia, [6] from The Economic Times. Some of these are a little brief, but there are more hits that I didn't include. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Nominating an article about an internationally well-known and wide-spread product such as Total Commander (aka Windows Commander), which is obviously notable by Wikipedia's standards (for a start, articles in 24 other WPs might give a hint) and which is regularly mentioned (and recommended) in computer magazines, for deletion is such a extreme waste of the precious time and energy of contributing editors, that it must be counted as destructive behaviour and vandalism and should be acted accordingly. We really should block single-purpose accounts who either don't do their homework before nominating articles for deletion or even deliberately want to get rid of a few articles out of low motives. We all make mistakes now and then, and we should be (and usually are) forgiving when someone make mistakes, but new accounts who have nothing better to do than nominating a series of long established articles about notable topics for deletion obviously aren't here to contribute anything useful to the project, they only waste resources and cause harm, so we should get rid of them without much ado. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A quick search reveals this to be a notable program. CarnivorousBunny^talk 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coop Forum[edit]

Coop Forum (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 enough for inclusion. Cloudbound (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How about a merger (selective, no list) and redirect to Kooperativa Förbundet? --Hegvald (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  If it fits in well then I'd support that. Cloudbound (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This major Swedish retailer meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] (subscription required). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Indeed major Swedish retailer. meets WP:CORPDEPTH.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) → Call me Razr Nation 01:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double Commander[edit]

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

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Marslo2015 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not 100% sure about this, but it does seem notable: [16] from Softpedia, [17] from de:PC Magazin, [18] from de:Computer Bild, [19] from Chip. I generally don't like leaning so heavily on download sites, but their reviews seem to be reliable. Note: the last three of the links are in German, and my German is atrocious, so I had to use Google Translate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the German references and found the last two to be reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not personally familiar with this product, but Google turns up enough mentionings (and some in-deep discussions) to make this topic notable. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely Sanctuary (manga)[edit]

Unlikely Sanctuary (manga) (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. Adam9007 (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this current article Seemingly has not even minimal signs of better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wish the author well, but at this point the series hasn't received any coverage in places that would be considered an independent and reliable source per WP:RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. This isn't manga per WP:MANGA criteria. No mention on Publisher's Weekly or School Library Journal. Heck, this isn't even on Amazon.How is this even notable per WP:BKCRIT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. There's absolutely no sources except for the author's blog. I understand the wish to make her work known, but Wikipedia isn't the place for that. -- 山村 貞子 (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. I can only logically assume this is advertising spam, quite probably either by the author, or a fan/associate. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable.DaveApter (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Date per WP:G11, blatant promotion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elhadjy Madior N'Diaye[edit]

Elhadjy Madior N'Diaye (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 lack of RS and lack of a meaningful professional career suggest this is not a suitable BLP. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Lack of sources. Soulseek324 (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC) struck !vote of a sockpuppet - they edited a number of AfD pages in addition to the one the sockpuppetry concerned, aparrently in a bid to make the sockpuppetry less conspicuous. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turquoisesummer RichardOSmith (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Appearances for Vitória de Setúbal are probably enough to meet the football notability guideline. Peter James (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect to the club page per WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, made 8 appearnces in the Portuguese top division before going on to have a lengthy career in the lower leagues. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 11:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per GiantSnowman meets WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:NFOOTBALL. which its meets.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL. It doesn't matter how "meaningful" their professional career was, having a professional career at all is by very long-established consensus something that confers notability, and notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Having played in the top flight of Portuguese football, this article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auramics[edit]

Auramics (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 music group. No reliable independent refs indicate notability, not could I find any. The article consists solely of a series of unsubstantiated comparisons to notable people and a huge notability section - and there the references are primary or to non-notable blogs. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oramics (band). RichardOSmith (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• This Canadian blog is one of the top blogs in canada very well known in this circle of music.

Well known canadian blog that is on hype machine: ^{[1] [2]}

Auramics top 100 tracks of the year^[3]

Well known english blog for this psych/hauntology genre if you don't know the genre they are well known in this genre: ^[4]

Well known music chart site in Athens Greece ^[5]

Well known radio station in Greece^[6]

Auramics on NYU's radio station ^[7]

Auramics in New York radio station sonic pilgrin^[8]

Auramics song on XSounds with record label Burlei ^[9]

Auramics is notable.

— Turquoisesummer (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Turquoisesummer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardOSmith (talk • contribs) 2015-12-26T21:51:42[reply]

— User:Kashmiri made a quiet edit to the previous contribution without leaving a signature on 2015-12-27T18:38:11‎.  This quiet edit was to strikeout the comment.  I have reverted the stikeout, and added an unsigned template for a spa tag added by User:RichardOSmith.  See WP:TPO.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An article about this band with a slightly different spelling was deleted in this AfD - cf this and the sources there. I'll request a speedy deletion as a repost. --bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I did not see that this was already mentioned - the link to the previous AfD had been removed and was restored while I was writing the above. Delete at any rate, preferrably speedily. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am reversing this speedy deletion for this band Auramics, because it is in fact a notable band in the hauntology/radiophonic genre which is a very small genre of music. 21:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Echoechoradar (talk) — Echoechoradar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Auramics is listed in the genre of music hauntology it is indeed notable. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoechoradar (talk • contribs) 21:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, a mention in a Wikipedia article is never a proof of notability, not the way Wikipedia defines notability at any rate. Especially when it was the creator of the articles about this band who added the band name to the other Wikipedia article... --bonadea contributions talk 21:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, this genre is niche and small and Auramics is notable. 21:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Echoechoradar (talk)

Bands that are not "pop" music on pitchfork still can be popular among said circles whom invented such genres. Ie. Hauntology Radiophonic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoechoradar (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• I vote to keep Auramics. Agreed with EchoechoRadar, its notable among those genres. 21:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Analogsynth (talk) — Analogsynth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, and is severely lacking any secondary reliable references. Closing admin, please take into account the level of meat/sock -puppetry -- samtar ^whisper 22:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with whisper. Just because "reliable sources" are not pitchfork, does not mean a band isn't notable. That Canadian blog is one of the 10 biggest indie blogs in Canada and those radio stations are legitimate radio stations. Undelete. 22:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Echoechoradar (talk)[reply]

• Auramics approved as reliable. Someone please edit for grammar however. 22:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Pandoraofwiki (talk) — Pandoraofwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - See this SPI. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: SPI moved to here. --Finngall ^talk 19:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Plenty of credible sources. Soulseek324 (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Soulseek324 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete: Potential sockpuppetry to keep this article alive. Also fails WP:GNG. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't pass notability cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sex with reference to the Quran[edit]

Sex with reference to the Quran (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)

Essay composed largely of Original research/synthesis and redundant to Islamic sexual jurisprudence. A merger was proposed some months ago, but most comments were in favour of deleting. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A merger should be done when there is something to salvage. This is complete OR. I am not sure if there is anything salvageable here. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is really a very blatant example of good intentioned OR. There really isn't much more to add; it should be an open and shut case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ِDelete: Looks like a conference article. It's WP:OR entirely and does not pass WP:GNG. Mhhossein (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• ِDelete Agree with the above. We've got a better article on the subject already. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Islamic sexual jurisprudence which is a better developed article on exactly the same subject. I have no objection to merging anything useful there, if there is anything. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Liz. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 01:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: According to Liz the article was tagged G7 at the time of deletion. Altamel (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masood Ahmad[edit]

Masood Ahmad (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's name is not uncommon, but searching for him in connection with "Shipping Office" leaves me with the impression that he fail WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The IP who requested that this article be nominated for deletion is a block-evading editor who was blocked for sockpuppetry. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jovancov kamen[edit]

Jovancov kamen (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)

Request per my talk page. Eteethan(talk)🎄 20:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jovancov kamen is lower peak of the Cudinska planina and it is not necessary to have a separate page. 77.105.24.109 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Wikipedia's remit as a gazetteer geographic features are notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Striking my !vote - see my closing comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jovancov kamen is only one insignificant peak within Cudinska planina peaks. In addition to top-level Aramlija one, there are around twenty of them and when even the highest peak does not your page, why would an irrelevant and unknown peak had his own page when there are pages of the mountain on which it is located. Then coordinates Jovancov kamen are inaccurate but it coordinates most points Aramlija. So the coordinates are wrong and this is the main reason why you should delete the page. Then the question is whether the height is correct or not. Jovancov kamen is really unknown location and for the Serbs and Bulgarians. Because of these irregularities page to be deleted. 77.105.24.109 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EFileCabinet[edit]

EFileCabinet (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. Tagged for advert concerns since 2012 and as an orphan since February 2015. Cloudbound (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is another classic example of an article needing deletion long ago as I simply see nothing to suggest even minimally better notability and improvement especially frmo the listed sources. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. This is another classic example of an article about a notable company that would benefit from copy editing and the addition of reliable sources. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8] North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Given the sources found, the subject meets WP:CORPDEPTH. A little c/e would be nice though.—UY Scuti ^Talk 08:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Virgin Group. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Charter[edit]

Virgin Charter (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 company with little chance of expansion. Cloudbound (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable portion of Richard Branson's business portfolio Seasider91 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Virgin Group. Notable as part of the list there if not on its own, a plausible redirect, and as always redirects are cheap (by some accounts, cheaper than deletion). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Virgin Group - we don't need separate pages for each branch or venture of the company. LaMona (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SmartBidNet[edit]

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

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

Non-notable software, tagged under advert concerns since 2010 and as an orphan article since September. Cloudbound (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches simply found nothing better than a few links here and there at Books, News and browsers and nothing to suggest a better article here. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CLoudbound Fails WP:SIGCOV and is Promotional a non notable software by JBKnowledge Technologies .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't seem to have significant coverage, most are press releases. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT (essay)—UY Scuti ^Talk 08:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Where to begin. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NSOFT. Also would qualify for deletion under WP:DEL4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Virgin Group. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Limousines[edit]

Virgin Limousines (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. I've tried looking up references to the company and have found none so far. Cloudbound (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable part of Richard Branson's business portfolio Seasider91 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Virgin Group. Notable as part of the list there if not on its own, a plausible redirect, and as always redirects are cheap (by some accounts, cheaper than deletion). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Virgin Group - we don't need separate pages for each branch or venture of the company. LaMona (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong consensus for delete when the obvious socks are discounted. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M.A.M. Mansoor[edit]

M.A.M. Mansoor (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 article has own sources and unreliable sources. From 2013, the article has failed to prove the notability issue AntanO 19:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete, with the exception of a scan from an undated newspaper that others cannot independently verify there's no third-party coverage. Even if we knew that newspaper article's full bibliographic details, one reference is not enough to establish notability. I couldn't find anything via Google News. Huon (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The listed sources particularly especially suggest no better signs of a better article especially if some of the frequent ones are simply social media. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There is indeed no doubt that M.A.M.Mansoor is a renowned personality in Srilanka. Having conducted several lectures regarding religious and social issues and authored a number of books and an exegesis for the Qur'an his contribution to education is immense. He is also a promoter of social harmony and pluralism. It will be a great loss to the society if his wikipedia page is deleted so I suggest that wikipedia allows this page to exist.Farweezdeen (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC) — Farweezdeen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.160.21 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
• keep, since Usthaz M.A.M. Mansoor is a prominent scholar who has been immensely contributing to the society by his lectures, books, researches and etc.. in religious as well as in various contemporary issues, we want his page to be exist in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.160.21 (talk • contribs) — 175.157.160.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Please leave only one keep or delete comment per AfD. I have struck your two earlier comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I would like to suggest Wikipedia to keep this page because Usthaz M.A.M Mansoor has been an influential personality since more than 25 years in Sri Lanka. His contribution to social harmony and peace significantly known among the Muslims in Sri Lanka. He has a large number of students who are qualified professionals such as Doctors, Engineers, government university lecturers, teachers, lawyers, and some influential figures in Sri Lanka. So I think his page should be existed in Wikipedia for betterment of the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haifa Hamdha (talk • contribs) 15:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC) — Haifa Hamdha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, Usthaz M.A.M Mansoor is a prominent Islamic scholar in srilanka. Being a lecturer and personality he has been rendering unlimited services to the society. Deletion of his page from Wikipedia will be a universal loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.160.21 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC) — 175.157.160.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment Due to the new users and IPs' suspicious support to keep the article, sock puppet investigations has been reported. The new users and IPs are are failed to improve the article that has BLP issue, but keen to vote. --AntanO 18:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The lack of independent reliable sources means we have little to write about him and no evidence as to how renowned he actually is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked for reliable sources on this guy and found nothing. Also - these are the most blatantly obvious and ineffective sockpuppets I've ever seen, are they even trying? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All sockpuppetry aside, there's nothing in the way of sources or the like to meet WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article claims membership in local chapters/affialiates of international Islamic organizations (not contributing to notability), Foremost scolarship in Islamic studies (which independent sources don't back up), and the acclaim of many "visitors" to this site. In short I see no good justification for an article on the English wikipedia. There might be an argument for Arabic or the appropriate wikipedia for Sri Lanka, but not here. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepM.A.M.Mansoor is an influential scholar of Sri Lanka.He has contributed a lot for the growth of Islamic knowledge in the Sri Lankan society.I object the deletion of this page.When certain pages with few lines about a particular subject can exist in Wikipedia,what's the point of considering this page for deletion by mentioning that it lacks information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas456 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC) — Abbas456 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLAR. More and better sources would be required for a WP:BLP. Scr★pIron^IV 14:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in spite of all the SPA activity, nothing to indicate this person passes either WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All socks blocked and tagged --AntanO 16:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coin Acceptors[edit]

Coin Acceptors (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 fails WP:GNG,. User:Thisisnotatest do the sources pass WP:NOTNEWS / WP:CORPDEPTH ? Widefox; talk 19:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced does not fail WP:GNG. Notability is independent of article content. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nom) User:Thisisnotatest Read literally I would agree with you. "no sources" and a quick look for some didn't find much failing WP:GNG, and crucially failing WP:CORPDEPTH is my actual WP:BEFORE (plus I couldn't assess the sources you found). Above was shorthand. The three sources aren't significant coverage - seems run of the mill to me. Although the letter of WP:ILLCON is not applicable, the spirit may disregard 2/3 of the current sources. There's just not much coverage. (combined with now disclosed creator's COI User:Kbigdawg1) Widefox; talk 15:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. No significant coverage. However, there are several passing mentions of the company ([20], [21], [22], [23]). APerson (talk!) 19:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No non-trivial coverage; just another small business. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Get rid of it, as it's obviously not notable. I hesitate to recommend deletion, however, as this is potentially a decent alternate name for a coin-operated machine, and that title is a redirect to Vending machine. So either delete or redirect. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend Coin acceptor already targets Currency detector, this proper noun is unrelated, and free for deletion. Widefox; talk 09:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Because our page titles are case-sensitive, the existence of a differently-capitalised title is not a reason to delete this one: it's just an additional reason for redirecting this one to the same target. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend Why? WP:DIFFCAPS doesn't apply as there's not two articles needing disambiguation. I've created the lowercase plural Coin acceptors -> Currency detector. WP:OTHERNAMES is no as well... "it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links". I personally don't like wrong caps, so I'd prefer delete anyhow. Widefox; talk 15:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your ping didn't work; I've come back because I was curious how the discussion was going, not because I got a notification. There's a big difference between "not necessary to do X" and "necessary not to do X", and a big difference between creating something new and retaining something that already exists. Titles being case-sensitive, someone who goes to Coin Acceptors, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_Acceptors, will assume that we don't have anything on the subject: there's no good reason to get rid of this unambiguous and not-particularly-unlikely title, rather than retaining it as a redirect, when we're retaining a version that's better capitalised. This is a fine example of ((R from other capitalisation)). Final note: as the page was getting several views each day before it was brought here, before there was a capitalisation variant with the same title, we have even less reason to trash it. Better to retain the history, and better to cause somewhat less confusion, than to delete it entirely. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend (this one should work, as it's not re-edited) agree with that logic, and your valid point catalysed my lowercase creation instead and a hatnote at Coin Acceptors (pending deletion). After the former, it seems moot per OTHERNAMES - the redirect needs creating, it's never been in use and there's no need to use the uppercase in a link per OTHERNAMES. The search interface will switch to the lowercase for the historical use case of the uppercase (that until now was badly served without a hatnote), so that's moot too. The only confusion I envisage, is the search interface currently prompting for the uppercase which is a real company name (a minor point as it seems not notable). Caveat my view may be quite personal (redirects being cheap). Widefox; talk 01:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to observe that I'm not talking about the search interface. Remember that not everyone goes to pages with the search box: it would be appreciated if you didn't totally ignore people who would go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_Acceptors, as I already said, rather than Special:Search/Coin_Acceptors. See WP:RKEEP point #5. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After replying I did realise, thanks, and in case I'd missed some important incoming links I quickly checked, but seemed so unimportant I didn't follow-up. So after covering most of the use cases, we're left with those people of the world with this bookmarked? If correct, this seems to me increasingly niche and offtopic. Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons is for redirects. This has never been a redirect. The top says "AfD" not "RfD". (these two articles also have only themselves as INT links, they're COI spam) Widefox; talk 04:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the subject is notable. I have added notable references, although WP:GNG does not require that references be present in the article to establish notability. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those fall short (per my nom, which clarifies that it wasn't just in the article). Stating it's notable without providing significant sources to evaluate against guideline when challenged just isn't persuasive. Widefox; talk 23:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find secondary sources; news reports about events that just happened are primary sources. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in any case as the current sources are simply not enough to suggest a better solid article. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Royal_Vendors (PROD now been opposed) Widefox; talk 15:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable.DaveApter (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. They exist. They're a company. Nothing notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland Language House[edit]

University of Maryland Language House (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 dormitory. Essentially none of them are notable. No non-university sources for this one. Not even worth a merge--it doesn't seem significant enough for that. We;re not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Nothing remarkable about this residence hall. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and WP:NOPAGE.Blue Riband► 14:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unlike McKeldin Mall on the same campus, there is nothing to show that this particular dorm is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uno Hoffmann[edit]

Uno Hoffmann (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 artist; no works in permanent collection of a major museum; no extensive (or any) critical studies of their works. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No non-trivial third-party coverage to support WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Works in permanent collections In response to DGG's comment above - I have contacted the Gulbenkian, Moderna Museet, and the Art Museum of Estonia to confirm that each of these continue to hold works by Hoffmann within their permanent collection. What kind of evidence do I need to add to the article for this? Will respond to non-trivial third-party coverage on a separate line. Kutbil-ik (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-Trivial Sources I have located more sources from newspapers and otherwise concerning Hoffmann's work, and added these to the article and to the talk page.Kutbil-ik (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two sources you added are press releases, which do not count as reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial coverage not enough to pass Wp:GNG and doesn't seem to have met WP:ARTIST—UY Scuti ^Talk 08:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now at best as there may simply not be enough yet. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to not have an article on this. Perhaps also redirect, but no clear consensus as to where, so that's an editorial decision.  Sandstein  09:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afrophile[edit]

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

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

Unsourced "-phile" —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources, would be a dicdef at best. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrophilia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the term does exist in many reliable sources (quick Google Books search verifies that); however, i think it would most suitably belong as a dicde--for now at least.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the term is similar to and more widely quoted than other current Wikipedia words such as; Kartvelophile and Suecophile. It clearly has a legitimate place in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.80.126 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - (1) Is there really no other page that covers this? The appreciation, fascination, appropriation, and exploitation of African arts and culture has been happening in a sense that could be described by this term since the Age of Discovery. Explorers would go to Africa just to purchase or plunder its culture to return to rich Europeans (and, later, Americans). There's Exploration of Africa and Colonisation of Africa, and there's Culture of Africa and African art, but I'm seeing surprisingly little about this. Anyone else have ideas? (2) @Fotoriety: That a word is used just means it's appropriate for a dictionary (like Wiktionary). We need sources that talk about the subject that the term refers to. Have you seen any of those? I'm actively looking right now. I don't have much time, but I'm surprised I haven't found more already. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Ah. Found it. Negrophilia. Close enough. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments It could be argued that contemporaries would be offended by the term "Negrophile" for obvious reasons. Afrophilia captures a contemporary world view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:18e1:e8ab:0:d48b:9eae:cec6:6f98 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 December 2015‎

• Negrophilia was a specific name used in France in the early 20th century, so we certainly wouldn't want to rename it. The article doesn't take it much beyond that, but the underlying phenomenon is the same. Crucially, there are sources that talk about negrophilia, and we are, as yet, without significant coverage of afrophilia. An article on the broader subject would be ideal, but for our purposes we're just looking at whether afrophile/afrophilia are notable, and with negrophilia already existing with a good amount of overlap, we'd need to see some good sources to justify keeping this one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: It's hard to see that we should have both Afrophile and Aphrophilia, so one should surely redirect to the other. I'm less than persuaded that Negrophilia is exactly the right target, given its overtones: at best the term is obsolete. At the moment, Aphrophilia is rapidly being given reliable sources. Perhaps both the other articles should redirect to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - not sure what the appropriate redirect is, but this is nothing more than a dicdef and some WP:SYNTH crap (Bill Clinton, Bono?) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If not acceptable as an article, this could be redirected either to Negrophilia or to African studies. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be a non-notable neologism, though it seems conceivable that the concept itself could be notable. I found a few uses of the word on Google News, but I don't see the significant coverage that Wikipedia requires. It's entirely possible this could be redirected to Negrophilia, but that seems like a distinct Paris fad. The other suggestion, African studies, is a decent choice, but it's an academic subject, not a pop cultural appreciation. I suggest deletion and leaving it to editor discretion as to whether a redirect is appropriate. If someone can show that the concept is notable, under a name that isn't a non-notable neologism, we could have an article on that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: the many arguments for deletion all apply for current longstanding Wikipedia words such as; Japanophile, sinophile and europhile. Yet they exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.232.171 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a link for that! WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no valid points for deletion or redirection. While the word exists in historical and contemporary lexicon and many valid sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.86.79 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC) — 24.114.86.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kovacs Foundation[edit]

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

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

Not sufficiently notable to merit an article. Alexbrn (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - CatcherStorm (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of thousands of small non-profits. No demonstration whatsoever of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wael Abu Dayyih[edit]

Wael Abu Dayyih (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:NOTCV GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails to pass GNG or academic. I also have to say the format is downright unworkable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a run of the mill academics CV that he's put up himself. Seasider91 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NACADEMIC, self published CV. Melcous (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. the standard of notability by WP:PROf is international, and he does not meet it. Low citations, though some of the publications are in journals that are internationally known, so the work would have been cited if it were important. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW delete as this nearly even speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. It is CV which the subject has himself put up.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pathway Pharmaceuticals[edit]

Pathway Pharmaceuticals (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 is a newly established "personalized medicine company" with no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. The reference attributed to Reuters is actually a press release not written by Reuters. Citobun (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. I am surprised this article was approved for article space. Delta13C (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable company. Reuters ref turns out to be a press release. Keeping articles about non-notable companies out of WP is difficult because of the vague wording of WP:CORP which seems to say that any two sources is enough to support notability. Unfortunately, it doens't say what the content of those sources should be, and financial news reports on every action by a company of any size, including routine reports about stock prices , mergers, and funding. We really must get a grip on this or WP will end up being nothing more than a company directory, since most of these companies are seeking SEO that is provided by having a WP article. We need a better definition of what makes a company notable. LaMona (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are a few links here and there, yes, but Seemingly nothing for a noticeably better article. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:G11. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kubba Challenge Cup Singapore[edit]

Kubba Challenge Cup Singapore (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)

Declined prod. This is a blatant advertisement that references no independent sources; I can find no evidence of any coverage of this event in any reliable source. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as blatant advertising per G11. clpo13_(talk) 17:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Mayhem[edit]

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

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

I can see nothing in the refs that convey any sense of notability. One is a domain for sale and another appears to have no content. The rest are YouTube videos and web-site interviews on sites without the required credentials to establish independent notability. Some appear to be blogs. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Out article does mention them, but it's a pretty brief mention. It's probably a bit too soon yet. I'm having trouble finding significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Curro2 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Life Will Kill You. Consensus to delete following relisting; redirected per the nom's (apparently overlooked) proposal. If the first is desired to be changed in target or dabbed, that can be done through the conventional editing process. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Baby[edit]

Little Baby (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 Price We Pay (Clawfinger) (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)

Two songs with no real claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC for much of anything besides the fact that they exist, and citing no reliable source coverage about the songs (the "references" here are primary sources, such as the record label and "buy it" pages on commercial sales platforms.) Wikipedia's notability rules for songs do not confer automatic inclusion rights on every song that exists — if you cannot adequately demonstrate and source that the song is a notable topic in its own right independently of its parent album, such as by actually charting on an IFPI-certified record chart, then it gets a redirect to the album and not a standalone article. Redirect to Life Will Kill You. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing to show that either of these singles passes either GNG or NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not particularly familiar with the music notability standards, but I don't see why we'd need to delete this title entirely; if the article's subject isn't notable, either redirect the title per nom, or redirect it to infancy. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable about this track. Even the entire album is a bit iffy when compared to WP:NMUSIC but the track is an obvious delete. LaMona (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed the second track listed here. Delete that one also, same reason. LaMona (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I suppose although I was interested by Nyttend suggesting this be moved also to infancy and even likely a disambiguation perhaps for both articles. What is certain though is that this article's current subject is not keepable. SwisterTwister talk 18:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  09:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Talore[edit]

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

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

minor shared award does not pass GNG or PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet notability requirements for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO with FAME Award for Favorite Female Rookie. The award is not scene-related and being tied with another performer does not make this award an ensemble category. Ensemble, by definition, means "a group of musicians, actors, or dancers who perform together." Talore and Alektra Blue have never even done a single scene together. This is also a newcomer award, which have overwhelming consensus favoring their inclusion in PORNBIO. Also, the ONLY FAME Awards removed from PORNBIO were nominations (as were ALL other nominations for EVERY porn award). Wins were never removed from PORNBIO and Talore was not only nominated for this award, she won it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - winner, meets of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 14:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As nice as she is unfortunately article's don't get kept based on looks! - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article, as it stands, falls far short of meeting GNG/BLP requirements: Little of the sourcing is reliable, and virtually none is independent. The issue is then whether the subject's FAME Award is sufficient to outweigh this shortfall. IU don't believe the award is well-known and significant, as required by PORNBIO. I've seen no evidence that is regarded as significant, either inside the industry or in outside commentary. Instead, it was a short-term and ultimately unsuccessful contrivance, a corporate marketing-generated example of astroturfing masquerading as a fan enterprise. It never really gained any traction, and it's significant that sources used in the award article are uniformly associated with the awards themselves or their corporate sponsors. With no basis presented for concluding the award is significant, and no independent reliable sourcing in the BLP itself, I see nothing supporting the claim that the subject is notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Several past discussions determined that the FAME Award for Favorite Female Rookie is indeed well-known/significant. Consensus favoring the FAME Awards as well-known/significant still exists on WP. See this discussion, which took place only four months ago. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article meets WP:PORNBIO standards because Brandy Talore won the FAME Award. Miss Talore's award was based on a fan vote conducted by several different nationally known adult media companies. A person must be well known to the public to win a publically voted award. As such, Brandy Talore is notable to the public and she is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The FAME Awards, themselves, have been debated on Wikipedia. The final decision is that a FAME Award is considered notable and significant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theendoftheblear (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, She won F.A.M.E. Award.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The earlier discussions highlighted by Rebecca1990 took place a long time ago and standards have increased since. As Morbidthoughts highlighted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award "ANYBIO requires the award to be well-known and significant which is a higher standard than simply being notable". There is not sufficient evidnence that the award is "well-known & significant.Finnegas (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Finnegas (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Well known" and "significant" are not actually a quantifiable higher standard than "notable". In fact, the words are all synonyms of each other. The FAME Awards are well known because hundreds of thousands of people have voted for them, and many more have been interested in the results. A FAME Award is a significant industry achievement because it means that the recipient has stood out in some exceptional way to the public. The FAME Awards article was discussed as recently as August 2015, and the final determination was to keep the article. Theendoftheblear (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This argument is simply wrong, contrary to consensus and practice. The "well-known/significant" standard parallels the use of the same language in WP:ANYBIO, where there is no dispute that it represents a higher standard than notable. There are many clear examples of notable awards/honors that don't demonstrate notability of their recipients -- Rhodes Scholars may be the most prominent example, but many military medals fall into that category, as do many British crown honors. PORNBIO was revised several years ago to tighten up this criterion in particular: it used to indicate that any notable award was sufficient, but that proved unsatisfactory, and more restrictive language was adopted, without any great controversy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The standard set by WP:PORNBIO is flawed to say the least. First of all, there are a few Wikipedians who have arbitrarily determined which awards are significant industry awards and which are not. Second, the receipt of an award does not make someone notable - especially in this industry. Finally, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a medium where users can create articles to share information on items in which they are subject matter experts or have done appropriate research. It is ridiculous as to how many bios have been recently deleted because people don't have anything better to do. Hobbamock (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This comment is EXACTLY right. The PORNBIO standards are at best, arbitrary, and at worst, show a profound lack of knowledge towards what makes a performer "notable". Brandy seems to meet the ridiculous standards thanks to her FAME award, but anyone who follows porn, especially big bust porn, knows that Brandy has been a big name in porn for more than a decade. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Note: I have recently edited the article in question here. The subject here has won "a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (recently found to be a notable award ceremony at AfD and basically comperable to the People's Choice Awards) "Favorite Female Rookie Starlet", which is similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories (AVN Award for Best New Starlet & XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet). See also the previous AfD discussion in 2007 about this subject that was apparently about this very award win. The fact that the award winners tied that year is pretty much meaningless. Guy1890 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no foreseeable way that this can result in a "delete" outcome, and it would just need to be recreated in less than a week anyway. Therefore, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I'm going ahead and closing this. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 in the United States[edit]

2016 in the United States (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:CRYSTAL, as 2016 has not started yet. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". I'm going out on a limb, but I think it will happen... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. WP:CRYSTAL covers "unverifiable speculation" and all the events listed here (plus more, I'm about to add United States presidential election, 2016 to the list) are verified that they are taking place and articles have already been written about them. Besides, if we let this run its full course, it'll be 2016 when it's closed, which would negate the nominator's rationale. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above; we definitely have articles about things that are happening in 2016 in the United States; making a list of them at this point is just fine. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Gaier[edit]

Harald Gaier (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 sources cited in the article do not meet GNG or BLP. None describe Harald Gaier in any detail, and a Google search did not turn up better sources. This seems to be an example of a promotional piece for a non-notable alt-med practitioner. Delta13C (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete sources in article are primary or secondary. Lacking third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - as per nominator. Sources show that Gaier has written some material that has been published, including a book on homeopathy and a few articles and book chapters. He gets a passing mention in a newspaper article where a feature writer visits a private clinic where he is a director. I don't see that there is enough independent coverage in reliable sources here to pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadnaut[edit]

Dreadnaut (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 came across this as a speedy as a recreation of an AfD'd page. However the article does now have sources that it previously did not, as the prior version was unsourced. It's enough for it to squeak by speedy criteria, but the overall notability is still in question so I'm bringing it here. The article asserts that it was considered the best of a local magazine, but I don't know that this would be enough for it to pass NBAND. If anyone can find sourcing I'm open to withdrawing this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Ah yes thanks for AfDing Tokyogirl79 as I put it aside for my plans and I still echo and confirm my original PROD: "Nothing to suggest fully satisfying bands notability guidelines as the Junofest mention is simply performing there, not an award, and my searches found nothing better than a few local passing mentions exactly what the currently listed sources are here, simply local weeklies.". Notifying the only still active past users Shirik and Paul Erik. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's kind of what I figured. It was enough to where I was worried that it could possibly be restored through DRV, so I figured the safest bet here was to just go through AfD and get a new consensus. I doubt that anything will change. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to dreadnought as a ((R from misspelling)). I found one review in Hollywood Music Magazine and a writeup on CBC Music, but I don't think it's enough to establish notability. Their writeups in the local papers only really mention that they played, which doesn't satisfy WP:NBAND, and they've opened for major acts but haven't themselves headlined on a national tour, which is generally a NBAND minimum requirement. They don't have a label, they haven't won or been nominated for any awards beyond local-level magazines, and their claim to fame of playing Manitoba Rocks isn't that impressive because that's really not a major show, it's just a show put on by a local radio station. Significant coverage of this band just isn't there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relisted twice and not enough participation to determine a consensus to either delete or keep the article. Please wait some time and relist the article if not new reliable sources are provided to establish notability of the subject. (non-admin closure) → Call me Razr Nation 01:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okieriete Onaodowan[edit]

Okieriete Onaodowan (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)

He'll probably be notable eventually, but currently he only has one notable credit to his name. JDDJS (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:JDDJS, baby, we've got to stop meeting like this. I mean, we just danced this set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Muñoz (actor). Would you consider rethinking this one, maybe withdrawing it? After all, 4,000 people a month come to this page to see who Onaodowan is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP as per WP:HEY. Just expanded article; note that his earlier stage roles were reviewed in major dailies; and there is that Grammy nomination. As article creator, my iVote is hardly surprising. As Nom himself says: "He'll probably be notable eventually." I argue that he already meets: WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Grammy nomination means nothing. It was for the whole cast. He doesn't even have any solo songs on it. JDDJS (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hear him here: [24]. Original cast album. Can it be that a Grammy "means nothing"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can't score tkts. to see Onaodowan in Hamilton (musical), you can see him here: [25].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding This argument for Onaodowan's "legacy" and "impact" as part of a unique, paradigm-changing cast, laid out by Mic here: [26].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdy City (Hip-Hop Group)[edit]

Rowdy City (Hip-Hop Group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is about a hip-hop group with no evidence that it meets the WP:NMUSIC standards and was created by an account with a username suggesting that it is being used for self-promotion (the username has been changed now that I have reported it). I nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:A7 and WP:G11. The author contested deletion 4 times and does not seem to get why it was nominated and that Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD nominations) 03:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - whenever an article is supported by so many social media refs + YouTube and nowadays SoundCloud, it always casts doubt on notability. I waded through them all (not for the faint-hearted) and could find no notability or even any significance. Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velella (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 December 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudos to Cullen328 for article improvement. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Art Fair[edit]

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

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

Looks not notable. Poor article, unreferenced, created and contributed to be SPA editors. Info outdated (defunct since 2009). Would appreciate the input from editors with an interest in art about notability. Rayman60 (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No attempt made to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria including WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Looking at RS this article is totally fixable. C'est la vie. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think it is salvageable, but someone needs to put in the work to fix it. How about you, MurderByDeadcopy? Deb (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried that once on an article in AfD where I recognized the subject and was aggressively attacked for the attempt so no, I refuse to go through that torture again! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google News search shows quite a bit of coverage, including a mention in the New York Times which helps explain why it closed . The fact that the event is no longer held should have no impact on this debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added new content and references to coverage in three independent, reliable sources to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it now stands the article passes GNG and WP:EVENT. The coverage in Contemporary British Art: An Introduction while short places it in context within the British art scene. Jbh^Talk 15:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, thanks to Cullen328's good work. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate MacGarry[edit]

Kate MacGarry (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)

Based on the notability guides and my searches, this does not seem to be a significant gallery. It has mainly been created, edited and maintained by SPA editors. I do not have enough knowledge about the sector to satisfactorily pass judgement, but as an outsider it really seems to be short of notability. Hoping for some input from more informed editors. Rayman60 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources about the gallery itself. Also, all the content, bar copyediting, has been added by editors with what look to be prima facie WP:COI issues. Edwardx (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed. and sad to say, it is endemic amongst related artists (i.e. a number of artists have had representation by this gallery inserted into their articles by infrequent contributors along a similar pattern). Being an outsider to the world of contemporary art, I found it difficult to assess notability and was a little hesitant to nominate some (so apologies if I'm way off the mark). Rayman60 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say 90% of Wikipedians have zero idea about the world of art which is why they so easily get deleted. On the other hard, sports figures on Wikipedia is like International Triviaville Extraordinaire! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Newsboys discography; always preferable to deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas! A Newsboys Holiday[edit]

Christmas! A Newsboys Holiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album. Does not meet the guidelines at WP:NALBUMS and does not meet the policy requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444^Talk 21:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This album fails NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]